appeals when member of Legislature is party or attorney. The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon terms as may be just; provided, that if a party or his attorney of record is serving as a member of the Legislature or the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, or within thirty (30) days after an adjournment of a session of the Legislature, such fact shall constitute cause for continuance of the case, and it is mandatory that the court shall grant such continuance upon motion whether such attorney may have been employed before or during the session of the Legislature, and the court shall have no power to exercise its discretion as to the granting of such continuance, and all motions, demurrers and preliminary matters to be heard by the court, the refusal to grant which shall constitute error, and entitle such party to a new trial as a matter of right. When a continuance is granted on account of the absence of evidence, it shall be at the cost of the party making the application unless the court otherwise order. And when any litigant has given notice of appeal from any judgment of any court of record in this state to the Supreme Court or Criminal Court of Appeals and the time for doing any act to perfect such appeal has, or does hereafter lapse during the session of the Legislature, whether regular or special, and the said litigant is a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, of the State of Oklahoma, in such session, or his attorney of record is such member, such litigant or attorney shall have such time after the adjournment of the session of the Legislature to perform such act and complete his appeal as he had at the commencement of the session of the Legislature, of which he or his attorney of record was a member, and all acts done in the perfection of such appeals shall be as valid as if done within the time provided. R.L. 1910, § 5044. Amended by Laws 1915, c. 236, p. 556, § 1; Laws 1919, c. 263, p. 374, § 1; Laws 1935, p. 2, § 1; Laws 1937, p. 1, § 1; Laws 1955, p. 134, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Bookout v. Great Plains Reg'l Med. Ctr., 1997 OK 38, 939 P.2d 1131.
· cites it 2× “See also, 12 O.S.1991 § 667 which provides in pertinent part: "The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon terms as may be just .”
Booze v. Dist. Court of Lincoln Cnty., 365 P.2d 589 (Okla. Crim. App. 1961).
· cites it 3× “On the 17th of March, 1961, Representative Bill Haworth filed a motion for continuance under the provisions of 12 O.S. § 667. On the 21st of March, 1961, after a hearing was had the motion for continuance was denied.”
Mott v. Carlson, 786 P.2d 1247 (Okla. 1990).
“For example: language in 12 O.S.1971, § 667, which said that “The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action .”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Caliber Dev. Co., 2016 OK CIV APP 1, 365 P.3d 1067.
“The Department's interest in having its preferred counsel try this case must be balanced with Caliber's interest in receiving the just compensation it was due as a result of the Department's taking.”
Spitznas v. State, 648 P.2d 1271 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
“1961), we found a statute, 12 O.S.1951, § 667, as amended by Laws 1955, an unconstitutional encroachment into the judiciary.”
McSpadden v. Mahoney, 402 P.2d 656 (Okla. 1964).
· cites it 2× “Title 12 O.S.1961, § 667, in pertinent part provides: “* * * And when any litigant has given notice of appeal from any judgment of any court of record in this State to the Supreme Court or Criminal Court of Appeals and the time for doing any act to perfect such appeal has, or…”
Mahan v. State, 508 P.2d 703 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973).
“” 12 O.S.1971 § 667. From the record before us, we cannot hold that under these circumstances the trial court abused its discretion.”
Matter of Est. of Katschor, 543 P.2d 560 (Okla. 1975).
“The applicable statute 12 O.S.1971, § 667, provides in pertinent part: “The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon terms as may be just; .”
Austin Bridge Co. v. Christian, 446 P.2d 46 (Okla. 1968).
“*49 Title 12 O.S.1961, § 667, provides the statutory authority for granting' a continuance.”
Waterdown v. State, 798 P.2d 635 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“The majority, by this opinion today, rigidly adopts all of the provisions, that are “clear and precise”, couched in 12 O.S.1981, § 667 and § 668. Surely, even those with a mod ~t imagination can recognize the po-tentia cor abuse cloaked in that portion of Section ⅛68 that reads:…”
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.