days after judgment, decree, or appealable order was filed. Where the grounds for a new trial could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered before but are discovered more than ten (10) days after the judgment, decree, or appealable order was filed, or where the impossibility of preparing a record for an appeal, without fault of the complaining party, arose more than ten (10) days after the judgment, decree, or appealable order was filed, the application may be made by petition filed in the original case, as in other cases, within thirty (30) days after such discovery or occurrence; on which a summons shall issue, be returnable and served, or publication made, as in the beginning of civil actions, or service may be made on the attorney of record in the original case. The facts stated in the petition shall be considered as denied without answer, and the case shall be heard and summarily decided after the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of service and not more than sixty (60) days after service, and the witnesses shall be examined in open court, or their depositions taken as in other cases; but no petition shall be filed more than one (1) year after the filing of the final judgment. R.L. 1910, § 5037. Amended by Laws 1969, c. 304, § 2, emerg. eff. April 28, 1969; Laws 1990, c. 251, § 11, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2023 · leading case:
Heirshberg v. Slater, 833 P.2d 269 (Okla. 1992).
Heirshberg v. Slater, 833 P.2d 269 (Okla. 1992).
· cites it 27× “Four issues are presented by the petition for certiorari: 1) whether, pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 655, 1 notice must be given by the service and return of summons on the party; 2) whether, under Rule 1.”
Jackson v. Maley, 806 P.2d 610 (Okla. 1991).
· cites it 4× “When this eventuality occurs, the appealing party is entitled to a new trial under 12 O.S.Supp.1990 § 655. [26] Similarly, if a timely and legally sufficient recount claim must be denied for an inexcusable fault of the election officials, the recount petitioner who…”
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 720 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1986).
“As a ground for postjudgment relief under the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 655, newly-discovered evidence is so very independent of and collateral to an appellate review of the judgment that it can be invoked in the trial court even while the appeal from a judgment is still pending.”
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Auth. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2 (Okla. 2005).
“An order granting a new trial or vacating a judgment based upon any ground, including that of newly discovered evidence or the impossibility of making a record *559 (12 O.S.1991 § 655) is an interlocutory order appealable by right (12 O.”
Kimble v. Kimble, 2011 OK 85 (Okla. 2011).
· cites it 2× “grants a judgment under this rule, neither the pleadings nor the pretrial conference order may be amended by the addition of allegations in regard to any fact which was known to the party and which could have been presented at the hearing on the motion, and a motion for a…”
Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86 (Okla. 2009).
“1 provides: Orders of the district court that are interlocutory and may be appealed by right in compliance with the rules in this part are those that: (a) Grant a new trial or vacate a judgment on any ground, including that of newly discovered evidence or the impossibility of…”
Nu-Pro, Inc. v. GL Bartlett & Co., Inc., 575 P.2d 620 (Okla. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The court had no jurisdiction to enter such a motion since the provisions of 12 O.S.1971 § 655 had not been substantially complied with.”
Willoughby v. City of Oklahoma City, 706 P.2d 883 (Okla. 1985).
“There are at least three reasons why the appellant may not secure corrective relief from this court: I This case comes to us as a petition by the plaintiff [appellant] for certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order which, in a proceeding for new trial under 12 O.S.1981…”
Austin v. Curry, 651 P.2d 1320 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Observing that the petition for new trial was filed more than one year from the final judgment in the case, contrary to 12 O.S.1971 § 655, appellants objected to the trial court.”
R.J.B. Gas Pipeline Co. v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 813 P.2d 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
“12 O.S.1981 § 655 provides that "[W]here the grounds for a new trial could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before, but are discovered more than ten (10) days after the verdict .”
West v. Cajun's Wharf, Inc., 770 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1988).
“12 O.S.1981 § 655 provides: "Where grounds for a new trial could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered before but are discovered more than 10 days after the verdict or decision was rendered .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.