Court Opinion

ID: 9854260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:04:03.977922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:59.810456
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, J.
(specially concurring). In my opinion the dissenting views of Mr. Justice Hefner, in the case of Nichols et al. v. Levy, 151 Okla. 245, 1 P. 2d 766, should.have been adopted in that case. The logic and reasoning in the Hefner dissent is, to me, unanswerable. Since the above mentioned dissent was written, several states, including Iowa and Illinois, have followed the general thought contained therein. The majority opinion in the Levy case, supra, has never been followed.
While I have always been of the opinion that we should apply the rule of stare decisis wherever possible, yet, when we find that an earlier opinion has been proven to be unsound and we are thoroughly convinced of its unsoundness, we should correct the error at the earliest possible date.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice WELCH concurs in the foregoing views.