Opinion ID: 1196444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the counter-appeal

Text: The Bank had sought corrective relief from the trial court's denial of its counsel-fee request grounded on 12 O.S. 1981 § 936. This section entitles the prevailing party to counsel-fee award in an action to recover for labor or services. Sargent had urged that the Bank's counter-appeal be dismissed for failure timely to serve a copy of the petition-in-error and had requested an opportunity to respond. This court permitted the response but deferred its ruling on the dismissal quest. We now deny Sargent's motion. The delay in receiving a copy of the petition-in-error is neither a jurisdictional defect nor has it worked prejudice to Sargent's rights. Because the Bank's theory on which summary judgment was secured cannot stand, we need not today consider whether the Bank's nisi prius victory, based on federal pre-emption by § 24(Fifth), would have entitled it to a counsel-fee award that stands authorized by § 936. THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION IS VACATED; THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS PRONOUNCEMENT. HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE and ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur. KAUGER, J., concurs in result. SUMMERS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. SIMMS, J., dissents.