Date: 01-08-2002

Case Style: City of Lawton v. International Union of Police Associations, Local 24, et al.

Case Number: 2002 OK 1

Judge: Opala

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Frank V. Jensen, Lawton, Oklahoma, for Appellant

Defendant's Attorney: James R. Moore and Douglas D. Vernier of James Moore and Associates, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees.

Description: The City of Lawton [City] terminated the employment of Damion Hart [Hart], a police officer. He challenged the discharge by filing a grievance with the City. Upon its denial he demanded grievance arbitration asserted as authorized by a collective bargaining agreement1 between the City and the International Union of Police Associations, Local 24 [IUPA] (Hart's bargaining agent). Hart obtained an "arbitration award"2 [award], which restored him to his former position with some backpay allowance. The City brought a district court suit to vacate the arbitration decision.3 Hart and IUPA counterclaimed for judicial confirmation and enforcement. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Hart requested "partial summary adjudication" of the tendered issues, which would withhold from disposition only his claim to backpay, attorney's fee and interest. The City moved for the arbitration decision's vacation. The trial court's 24 July 2000 order here on review (a) denied the City's quest to vacate the arbitration decision, (b) determined the decision to be eligible for confirmation and enforcement, (c) decided most of the counterclaim issues by granting summary relief to the defendant, (d) directed the parties to pay their own fees and costs, and (e) "reserved for later hearing, if necessary," the amount of compensation due Hart on his counterclaim for confirmation.4 The City then secured a trial court's certification of the July 24 order5 for submission of the case to this court as a petition for certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order.6 Twenty-five days later, the City brought here an appeal (instead of a petition for certiorari to review that order), which it sought to prosecute by the accelerated-track method (designed for review of summary judgments).

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: This appeal is prosecuted from an unappealable order that fails to adjudicate all the issues tendered below. At this stage of the case the jurisdictional flaw cannot be cured by a nunc pro tunc correction of the record. Neither can the appeal be recast into a petition for certiorari to review a certified interlocutory order. This court's jurisdiction must now stand limited to certiorari review of the COCA opinion. Any postappeal nisi prius action in the case, called for by the parties' tendered stipulation, would be coram non judice. It is simply too late for the City to cure the jurisdictional flaw and to prevent the appeal's dismissal.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: E-mail suggested corrections, comments and/or corrections to: Kent Morlan

Welcome Video