Court Opinion

ID: 9629060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:36:27.662808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:15.074256
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. With the 1978 amendments to 85 O.S.1971, § 77, now 85 O.S.1981, § 3.6(A), the court en banc may reverse or modify the decision of the trial judge only if it determines that such decision was against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. For there to be a meaningful review by either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the en banc decision, particularly where the trial court is reversed on the ground its decision was against the clear weight of the evi*553dence, our task must be to determine whether the court en banc’s reversal was in compliance with its statutorily prescribed standard of review. Absent compliance with its own standard, its decision would be erroneous as a matter of law.
Review of the decisions of the court en banc by the “any competent evidence” standard could lead to this Court’s affirming an en banc’s reversal of the trial court where the court en banc’s decision was supported by some competent evidence, even though the trial court’s decision may have been overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. I do not believe that the Legislature intended such an anomalous result.