A. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third- party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the preparation and filing of a final judgment, decree, or final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the filing of a final judgment, decree, or final order. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the final judgment, decree, or final order adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties is filed with the court clerk. B. When a court has ordered a final judgment, decree, or final order under the conditions stated in subsection A of this section, the court may stay enforcement of that final judgment, decree or final order until the filing of a subsequent final judgment, decree or final order and may prescribe such conditions as are necessary to protect the interests of all parties to the action. If the court stays the enforcement of a final judgment, decree, or final order until the filing of a subsequent final judgment, decree, or final order, notice of the vacation or modification of the stay or of any condition that was imposed on the enforcement of the final judgment, decree, or final order shall be given to the parties affected by the stay or condition. Added by Laws 1990, c. 251, § 6, eff. Jan. 1, 1991. Amended by Laws 1991, c. 251, § 18, eff. June 1, 1991; Laws 1993, c. 351, § 23, eff. Oct. 1, 1993. Renumbered from § 1006 of this title by Laws 1993, c. 351, § 30, eff. Oct. 1, 1993. Amended by Laws 1995, c. 253, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Auth. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2 (Okla. 2005).
· cites it 16× “It determined that the transactions were lawful under the Oklahoma statutes and advanced its ruling for appeal pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 994. 8 ¶ 5 On January 29, 2004, the trial court issued several orders which: 1) declined to strike the third-party qui tam petition or to…”
Christ's Legacy Church v. Trinity Grp. Architects, 2018 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “]" The Supreme Court explained that the trial court's January 2016 order was, therefore, "not appealable at this time," but that Plaintiff "will have the opportunity to seek review of the January 6, 2016 order in a timely and properly brought appeal from an order which is…”
Casey v. Casey, 2005 OK 13 (Okla. 2005).
· cites it 4× “" [4] The trial court certified the case for immediate appeal pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 994 [5] in its Journal Entry of Judgment of *348 February 21, 2003 and in its April 11, 2003 Order denying Widow's Motion to Reconsider.”
May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK 100 (Okla. 2006).
· cites it 2× “THE COURT FURTHER FINDS pursuant to 12 O.S. § 994, that there is no just reason for delay and that the dismissal with prejudice shall constitute the filing of a final judgment, decree or final order for purposes of appeal, (emphasis added).”
Savage v. Burton, 2005 OK CIV APP 106 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The Supreme Court issued a show cause order March 17, 2005, directing Plaintiff to explain whether the case could proceed as an appeal from a final order pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 994. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order which certified the summary judgment for appeal…”
Anderson v. Eichner, 890 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1, 1993) § 1006 was amended and recodified as 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 994. For a discussion of § 1006 requirements, see Tinker Inv.”
LCR, INC. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 994 are: "A. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the preparation and filing of a…”
Skinner v. Braum's Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Skinner moved to certify the judgment as final pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 994. 5 Finding that there was no just reason for delaying the preparation and filing of final judgment as to Braums, the trial court sustained the motion.”
Raven Resources, L.L.C. v. Legacy Bank, 2009 OK CIV APP 101 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2001 § 952(b)(8), and interlocutory orders in mul-ti-party multi-claim cases certified for imme *1278 diate appeal, 12 O.S.2001 § 994. 6 When the district court's August 1, 2008, order dismissing Raven's Banking Claims was entered, it was not appealable because it satisfied none…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 994(A): 50 cases
Casey v. Casey, 2005 OK 13 (Okla. 2005).
“" [4] The trial court certified the case for immediate appeal pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 994 [5] in its Journal Entry of Judgment of *348 February 21, 2003 and in its April 11, 2003 Order denying Widow's Motion to Reconsider.”
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Auth. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2 (Okla. 2005).
“It determined that the transactions were lawful under the Oklahoma statutes and advanced its ruling for appeal pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 994. 8 ¶ 5 On January 29, 2004, the trial court issued several orders which: 1) declined to strike the third-party qui tam petition or to…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 994(a): 5 cases
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Auth. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2 (Okla. 2005).
“It determined that the transactions were lawful under the Oklahoma statutes and advanced its ruling for appeal pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 994. 8 ¶ 5 On January 29, 2004, the trial court issued several orders which: 1) declined to strike the third-party qui tam petition or to…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 994(b): 1 case
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.