Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
New Oklahoma court rule dealing with audio recordings of court proceedings with non-certified foreign language interpreters
Friday, May 2, 2014
Click the link below yo learn about California's new civility oath:
Civility oath requires new California lawyers to pledge to behave with dignity http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/topstories/~3/Bhu2-V0zLwQ/
Saturday, April 26, 2014
"Lawyers who want to pick through troves of public information that jurors or potential jurors put on the Internet about themselves may do so, but they may not communicate directly with the jurors, such as asking to 'friend' them on Facebook, according to a formal ethics opinion issued today by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism."
Friday, March 28, 2014
[UPDATE: LINKS FIXED]
The amendments to jury instructions can be found here:http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=472742
The amendments to the Rules for District Courts can be found here:http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=472743. Note that this order references the "Uniform District Court Rules," although the rules still appear to be entitled "Rules for District Courts."
The amendments to the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules can be found here:http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=472744
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Discovery disputes take up a great deal of time and account for much of the cost of litigation. In complex cases, discovery can become the tail that wags the dog – with the pace and tenor of the litigation controlled by discovery requests, depositions, motions to compel, and rulings on discovery disputes.Read more: http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/23/gavel-to-gavel-discovery-masters-opinion/#ixzz2igAZcWq0
Thursday, October 17, 2013
What Happens Now? Weighing Section 2056, the Federal Anderson Trilogy Standard and the State Constitutional Right to Trial
At first glance, Section 2056 presents only a superficial change from the previously long-held standard in Rule 13 that judgment should be rendered if “there is no substantial controversy as to the material facts and ... one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Substantively, Section 2056 merely substitutes the phrase “genuine issue” for “substantial controversy.” Can this modest change mark a fundamental shift in summary judgment jurisprudence?
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
In practice, Oklahoma attorneys can expect that they will need to check legislative histories regarding whether a particular statute was amended or enacted by the 2009 act, whether subsequent amendments saved the statute, and whether this year’s special session resolved these issues.Read more: http://journalrecord.com/2013/09/18/gavel-to-gavel-mixed-bag-of-bills-opinion/#ixzz2fIk1wP7Z
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
[S]ince 2009, the Oklahoma Legislature has amended some of the statutes that the CLRA amended or created. In an interesting twist, these later amendments may save certain provisions of the CLRA, based on the same constitutional provision that the court relied on in striking the CLRA.
The single-subject rule, also known as the rule against logrolling, is found in Article 5, Section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Section 57 also requires that the Legislature re-enact laws when it amends them.
As an example, Section 3226 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code was amended three times since 2009. Each time, the Legislature set forth the statute in its entirety. As a result, it appears that the Legislature saved the CLRA’s changes to Section 3226, simply by complying with the Oklahoma Constitution in its later amendments.
This twist may affect a number of the CLRA’s provisions. As a result, the term “re-enactment” may join “logrolling” as part of our vocabulary.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Clerk's office has published a new set of judgment interest rates based on its interpretation of Douglas. (Is this interpretation correct? That remains to be seen.)
As noted in my Journal Record column, it is possible that post-2009 amendments may have "saved" certain of the provisions of the CLRA, based on the "re-enactment" provision of Article 5, Section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Yet, the legislature may decide to recreate these amendments anyway in order to resolve challenges.
It appears that Justice Winchester was correct in predicting that “chaos ... will inevitably follow this opinion.”
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=469532. Holding that the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009, HB 1603, including 12 O.S. 19, is unconstitutional under the single-subject rule. This decision contains an extensive discussion of the single-subject rule, providing additional insight into the types of legislation that might run afoul of the rule. This rule remains a risk for any number of legislative initiatives.
Critically, HB 1603 also contains 12 O.S. 2056, which was the legislature's effort to align Oklahoma summary judgment procedure with federal summary judgment procedure. On this basis, the Douglas decision appears to answer the question, for now, of whether 12 O.S. 2056 controls Oklahoma summary judgment procedure.
For the text of 2009's HB 1603, see: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2009-10%20ENR/hB/HB1603%20ENR.PDF
Wall v. Marouk, 2013 OK 36, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=469531. Holding that 12 O.S. 19 is unconstitutional as a special law and as a burden on access to the courts. This decision extends Zeier v. Zimmer, 2006 OK 98. Notably, Zeier had one dissenting justice. Wall v. Marouk has two dissenting justices.
For the Journal Record articles on these decisions, see: http://journalrecord.com/2013/06/04/states-high-court-overrules-lawsuit-reform-act-law/
For a couple of recent columns on the single-subject rule, see: http://journalrecord.com/2013/05/16/c-fourthreading051713-opinion/