Opinion ID: 4387767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶9 The issue presented in this case is one of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law which this Court reviews under a de novo standard. Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage , 2017 OK 71, ¶ 10, 404 P.3d 856, 858; Brown v. Claims Mgmt. Res. Inc. , 2017 OK 13, ¶ 10, 391 P.3d 111, 115. In conducting de novo review, this Court possesses plenary, independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the lower tribunal's legal rulings. Corbeil , 2017 OK 71, ¶ 10, 404 P.3d at 858. ¶10 At issue is whether Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 551-312 (2011) excepts a class of attorneys from recovering prevailing party attorney fees for services rendered at no cost to their client. To answer this question, this Court must interpret and give ordinary meaning to the plain language of a statute while balancing the Legislature's intent. Statutory interpretation and ascertaining Legislative intent present questions of law which this Court reviews de novo . See Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund , 2001 OK 71, ¶ 8, 33 P.3d 302, 305; see also Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Pruett , 1999 OK CIV APP 39, ¶ 11, 978 P.2d 1005, 1008 (Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling.).