Court Opinion

ID: 9797150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:14:28.314803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:48.300023
License: Public Domain

OPALA, J.,
dissenting
T1 The court finds it appropriate to assume original jurisdiction, yet chooses to deny the writ request. While I abstain from expressing my own opinion on whether the writ should indeed be granted, I must question the court's wisdom in utilizing its original cognizance over this cause.
12 "... [TJhe determination whether to assume original jurisdiction in a ... case is discretionary ...1 Only where "... the case is publici juris in nature ..."2 and "there ... [is] some urgency or pressing need for an early decision3 is this court's exercise of its original cognizance ever warranted.
T3 After reading today's opinion, the erudite legal professional might ask herself, "cut bono?" Indeed, the world would most likely also join in similar wondering. Although the opinion finds that the long delays in the trial court were attributable to certain actions of the petitioner and that the trial court has yet to exceed the law's allowable quantum of its judicial discretion, the opinion nevertheless divines neither the requisite urgency nor absolute necessity for exercising this court's superintending control. In these cireum-stances one's commitment to judicial economy would strongly militate against acquiese-ing in today's act of supererogation.
T4 I would counsel the court either to assume original jurisdiction and issue the writ that is sought or deny the application to assume the cognizance petitioner seeks to invoke by disposition consisting of a single-line entry upon the court's order sheet.

. Edmondson v. Pearce, 2004 OK 23, ¶ 10, 91 P.3d 605, 613 (citing Keating v. Johnson, 1996 OK 61, 918 P.2d 51, 55).

. Id. at ¶ 11, 613-4.

. Id. (citing Ethics Commission v. Cullison, 1993 OK 37, 850 P.2d 1069, 1072) (emphasis added).