Court Opinion

ID: 9642924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:12:29.560649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:54.410849
License: Public Domain

Darrel Hickman, Justice, dissenting. This is the second case which we have reviewed of a lawyer being caught in a legal trap set by the legislature. The case should not be dismissed, because the legislation in question is in derogation of common law and, therefore, must be strictly construed against the one claiming its benefits. The provision in question is arbitrary, nothing but a special legal trap, and a procedural rule that conflicts with this court’s authority to decide procedural matters. I will concede that if it was the intention of the legislature to reduce malpractice claims, it has succeeded to some degree. These are two claims that I know of that have been “resolved.” I am authorized to state that Purtle and Hollingsworth, JJ., join in this dissent.