repeal exception in Oklahoma

2023Owens , supra. ¶3 This result ignores art. 5, §54 in which "proceedings begun" means when a cause is filed in the district court.

2023Owens , supra. ¶3 This result ignores art. 5, §54 in which "proceedings begun" means when a cause is filed in the district court.

1989While we have found no Oklahoma authority directly on point, the general rule holds that in the case of the repeal of an exception to the statute of limitations, the limitation period begins on the date of the repeal of the excepting clause. 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 142; Lewis v. Lewis, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 776 , 12 L.Ed. 909 (1849).

1989While we have found no Oklahoma authority directly on point, the general rule holds that in the case of the repeal of an exception to the statute of limitations, the limitation period begins on the date of the repeal of the excepting clause. 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 142; Lewis v. Lewis, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 776 , 12 L.Ed. 909 (1849).

1989As elsewhere noted, “[a] litigant has no vested right to maintenance forever of the status quo existing at the time of his injury with respect to the time within which a legal remedy remains available.” Reynolds v. Heartland Transp., 849 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir. 1988).

1989Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 142; Lewis v. Lewis, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 776 , 12 L.Ed. 909 (1849), cited with approval by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Huber v. Zimmerman, 8 Okl. 573 , 58 P. 737 (1899).

1989Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 142; Lewis v. Lewis, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 776 , 12 L.Ed. 909 (1849), cited with approval by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Huber v. Zimmerman, 8 Okl. 573 , 58 P. 737 (1899).

1921Held (a) that the statute cannot .be construed as though the word ‘intentionally’ was omitted; (b) that directors were not primarily liable under it; (c) that the liability imposed was in the nature of a penalty, sustained no contract obligation upon which creditors could rely, and if not put in' judgment, could not be enforced after the repeal of the clause imposing it, even if incurred before.” In Irvine v. McKeon, 23 Cal. 472 , the Supreme Court of California said in the syllabus : “Section 14 of the General Corporation Law of April 22d, 1850, making the directors of a corporation jointly a

1921St. 1908, sec. 911, providing for the filing of annual reports by the officers and directors of corporations, and making them individually liable for debts incurred during the preceding year in case -of the failure to file, is penal in character, and must be strictly construed.” In Holt et al. v. Aetna Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 78 Okla. 307 , 190 Pac. 877 , Rainey, C.