Court Opinion

ID: 9624862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:19:59.244377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:55.901887
License: Public Domain

OPALA, Vice Chief Justice,
concurring.
I fully concur in today’s judgment and in the court’s opinion, but I write separately to stress that the minute and journal entry of an order that sustains a motion for summary judgment should show that judgment was rendered and should include the terms of that judgment.1
When the case is terminated because the judge finds no material fact issue to be in genuine controversy, the decision is spoken of in lawyers’ parlance as one that grants a party’s motion for summary judgment. A far better practice is to characterize the ruling as one that pronounces summary judgment and to set out its specific terms. Instead of saying, for example, merely that “plaintiff's or defendant’s motion for summary is granted,” the minute and journal entry should go further and show “summary judgment to the defendant providing that plaintiff recover nothing”, or “summary judgment to the plaintiff for_” (here the blank space should contain the amount of money adjudged or recite an award for possession of specifically described property, real or personal).

. The principles of summary judgment practice counseled by today’s opinion manifest a close conceptual affinity to those which governed under the now-repealed Code of Civil Procedure, 12 O.S.1971 §§ 1 et seq., when a nisi prius court found, either on motion or sua sponte, that the pleadings in the case raised no issues of fact to be tried. A question of law would then arise as to which party was entitled to judgment. Once that party was identified, judgment on the pleadings would follow and be rendered as a matter of law. Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okl. 233, 192 P. 811, 815 [1920].