Two recent decisions on constitutionality of civil procedure provisions:
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/