Court Opinion

ID: 9796479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:58:20.974723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:23.186127
License: Public Domain

MITCHELL, V.C.J.,
dissenting.
'I 10 I disagree with the majority's conclusion that of the conflicting paragraphs in § 22, the later in position must prevail. The Supreme Court has not so held. Earnest, Inc. v. LeGrand, 1980 OK 180, 621 P.2d 1148, relied upon by the majority opinion and by the Court of Civil Appeals in Gee v. All 4 Kids, 2006 OK CIV APP 155, 149 P.3d 1106 holds and is quoted in (Gee that "... one matter to consider is that the last in order or position and arrangement possibly should prevail." That the order of the paragraphs or their position in the statute is a proper factor to consider, and that the last in order "possibly should prevail" are certainly reasonable guidelines in construing an ambiguity. Our Supreme Court in Harnest, however, only recognized this as a guideline and not as a strict rule of construction that would necessarily preclude the consideration of other factors that might be helpful in construing the statute.
T 11 I respectfully dissent.