Friday, September 29, 2017
Summary judgment reversed in collections case where pro se answer and MSJ response fairly raised fact issues regarding the balance owed
Pro se defendant alleged sufficient facts in his answer to invoke accord and satisfaction and possible violation of consumer protection statutes. Creditor did not sufficiently prove up the balance owed, thus leaving a fact issue.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
The Oklahoma Supreme Court holds that 20 OS 95.10 does not require judicial disqualification upon appellate reversal and remand. The statute is not allowed to usurp the courts' superintending control of judicial assignments.
"Mere reversal of a lower court's dispositive rulings will not, standing alone, provide a sufficient basis to warrant disqualification."
Follow the link for excellent commentary on the BNSF decision on general jurisdiction.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Friday, November 25, 2016
An excellent read on opening statements, from a legendary Oklahoma trial lawyer, of use to anyone with an interest in Oklahoma trial procedure.
The hallowed halls of UT Law placed great emphasis on original thought. I spent a great deal of my third year editing articles by and about Prof. Philip Bobbitt, whose writings represent some of the most enduring in generations of law professors. But some of his critics argued that Prof. Bobbitt's thoughts were not original. Jack M. Balkin & Sanford V. Levinson, Constitutional Grammar, 72 Tex. L. Rev. 1771 (1994) was the academic equivalent of insulting a person's heritage on the playground. See Philip C. Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 72 Tex. L. Rev. 1869 (1994).
With this emphasis on original thought, it became even more important to avoid the common practice of linking together a series of block quotes from other sources.
But what are the options for the legal writer -- who is so dependent upon sources and attribution, and whose original thoughts may well be critique of or commentary on other thoughts?
More after the break....
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Oklahoma Supreme Court carves another small exception to the rule that denials of summary judgment cannot be reviewed on appeal.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
The Court's decision on the Ten Commandments is now available for download on the Court's docket. The main decision was entered on July 27, 2015, along with five separate opinions joined by various combinations of the nine justices. These five separate opinions give Oklahomans great insight into the justices' views of the law on Oklahoma's establishment clause. Required reading for any Oklahoma interested in our State's Constitution and constitutional law. Find the decision and separate opinions in PDF form, linked here:
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Our "constitutional dispute" is making national news. Here are a few things to keep in mind. First, no one is in violation of court orders yet. The matter remains on appeal until mandate is issued, which will be after the rehearing process (whether granted or denied). Once mandate is issued, the mandate must be "spread of record." And the Supreme Court's order suggests further proceedings on remand, presumably consisting of some motions dealing with how the Supreme Court's decision will be memorialized in the trial court. That does take time. But we can expect the plaintiffs to seek swift movement. Second, the Governor's statement does not state that she will order a violation of the Court order. It just says (i) we respect rule of law, (ii) we will seek further proceedings, (iii) we will seek a constitutional amendment, and (iv) the memorial isn't going anywhere. This leaves her leeway to order compliance with the court order once it is enforceable. Third, I don't think it will be the governor who will be in contempt as she is not a party. The party defendant is the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority. The Authority is represented by the OKAG. It is not clear yet whether the OKAG will sponsor or allow contempt of court. I will be watching this one closely, as it has the potential to turn into a constitutional crisis. But it isn't there yet.