Opinion ID: 1257657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the nature of the relief sought by hoeme

Text: Although characterized as one for contempt, the 1977 hearing focused primarily on the conditions necessary for compliance with the November 1976 mandatory injunction. The present postdecree proceeding, brought below before the successor judge, was triggered by Hoeme's motion for execution. The parties later agreed Hoeme sought relief under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1981 § 902. [16] His object was to seek enforcement both of the injunction decree and of this court's mandate in Depuy I [17] by a ruling that further performance  the removal of the entire road dike  was necessary for the Depuys to comply with the injunctive relief's command and with this court's mandate in Depuy I. Hoeme now seeks reversal of the trial court's decision insofar as it gives res judicata effect to the 1977 oral directives and precludes judicial reexamination of the nature of work required of the Depuys to comply with the injunction decree's command. The decision presently tendered for our review necessarily requires that our attention be focused both on the terms and on the legal effect of the predecessor judge's 1977 ruling. While the successor judge's decision stands memorialized by a formal journal entry, that of his predecessor is not. Inasmuch as no written memorial of the predecessor judge's ruling was ever entered of record, we must first decide whether the unmemorialized directives of 1977 are entitled to res judicata effect.