Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., No. 58156
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | OPALA; BARNES, C.J., and HODGES |
| Citation | 681 P.2d 757,1984 OK 24 |
| Parties | HORIZONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEO LEASING COMPANY and Kenneth E. Olsen, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 58156 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1984 |
Page 757
v.
KEO LEASING COMPANY and Kenneth E. Olsen, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 758
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Div. 2.
Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment rendered by District Court, Delaware County, Frieden Lee Machesney, Judge. The Court of Appeals denied defendants' dismissal motion and reversed the judgment. On certiorari, THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION IS AMENDED; THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED.
David S. Eldridge, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Donald E. Herrold, Morrel, Herrold & West, Tulsa, for defendants-appellees.
OPALA, Justice:
1. The defendants sought to dismiss this appeal because it was not timely brought and the errors sought to be reviewed were not preserved by specific allegations in the plaintiff's postjudgment motion. The Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded that (a) the petition-in-error was timely filed in this court, (b) the statute of limitations had not run and (c) summary judgment, based only on the petition and exhibits, was erroneous. On certiorari the defendants argue that: (a) the Court of Appeals opinion failed adequately to consider their dismissal motion and (b) the trial court's summary judgment should be reinstated.
2. Within 10 days of the summary judgment for the defendants, plaintiff filed below a "motion to vacate" by which it sought to be relieved of the adverse decision. The motion is challenged here as ineffective to extend appeal time and its contents as insufficient to preserve for review the errors on which the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment.
3. We grant certiorari for the sole purpose of reaching for a precedential pronouncement the jurisdictional issue raised by defendants' motion to dismiss. We do not address defendants' other argument since we concur in the result reached by the Court of Appeals.
4. A motion seeking reconsideration, re-examination, rehearing or vacation of a judgment or final order, which is filed within 10 days of the day such decision was
Page 759
rendered, may be regarded as the functional equivalent of a new trial motion, no matter what its title. 1 The meaning and effect of an instrument filed in court depends on its contents and substance rather than on form or title given it by the author. Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, Okl., 655 P.2d 1040, 1043 [1983]; Knell v. Burns, Okl., 645 P.2d 471, 473 [1982]; Boose v. Hanlin, Okl., 346 P.2d 932, 935...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wright v. Oklahoma Corp., No. 101,605.
...relief, rather than the motion's title, is determinative of the relief requested from the court. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Deen v. Fruehauf Corp., 1977 OK 27, 562 P.2d 505, 506. When the movant has challenged the facial sufficiency of a petition and n......
-
Reeds v. Walker, No. 101,994.
...rendered, may be regarded as the functional equivalent of a new trial motion, no matter what its title. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757, 758-59. The rule is permissive, not mandatory, and applies only if the substance and content of the motion contains indic......
-
State v. Torres, No. 96996
...Knight, 1924 OK 806, ¶4, 232 P. 936, 937; Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 1982 OK 155, ¶18, 655 P.2d 1040,1043; Horizons, Inc. v. KEO Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶4, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Estate of Estes, 1999 OK 59, ¶24, 983 P.2d 438, 6. Bondsman suggested that state prosecutors' lack of diligence was mo......
-
State v. Torres, No. 96,996.
...Knight, 1924 OK 806, ¶ 4, 232 P. 936, 937; Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 1982 OK 155, ¶ 18, 655 P.2d 1040,1043; Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Estate of Estes, 1999 OK 59, ¶ 24, 983 P.2d 438, 5. Bondsman suggested that state prosecutors' lack of diligence wa......
-
State ex rel. Wright v. Oklahoma Corp., No. 101,605.
...relief, rather than the motion's title, is determinative of the relief requested from the court. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Deen v. Fruehauf Corp., 1977 OK 27, 562 P.2d 505, 506. When the movant has challenged the facial sufficiency of a petition and n......
-
Reeds v. Walker, No. 101,994.
...rendered, may be regarded as the functional equivalent of a new trial motion, no matter what its title. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757, 758-59. The rule is permissive, not mandatory, and applies only if the substance and content of the motion contains indic......
-
State v. Torres, No. 96996
...Knight, 1924 OK 806, ¶4, 232 P. 936, 937; Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 1982 OK 155, ¶18, 655 P.2d 1040,1043; Horizons, Inc. v. KEO Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶4, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Estate of Estes, 1999 OK 59, ¶24, 983 P.2d 438, 6. Bondsman suggested that state prosecutors' lack of diligence was mo......
-
State v. Torres, No. 96,996.
...Knight, 1924 OK 806, ¶ 4, 232 P. 936, 937; Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 1982 OK 155, ¶ 18, 655 P.2d 1040,1043; Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, ¶ 4, 681 P.2d 757, 759; Estate of Estes, 1999 OK 59, ¶ 24, 983 P.2d 438, 5. Bondsman suggested that state prosecutors' lack of diligence wa......