The Oklahoma Bar Journal February 2023

B EFORE 2019, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules had not been amended since 2014. Between 2019 and 2022, the court amended eight of its rules and added two new rules. This article provides a summary of those rule changes.

by the commercial carrier.” 3 If the filer fails to include the filing fee or pauper’s affidavit with the mail ing, the filer must ensure “such cost deposit or affidavit is actually delivered to the Court Clerk within the time period for perfecting the appellate procedure.” 4 If not, “The petition in error will not be consid ered timely filed.” 5 However, the court also amended Rule 1.4(c) to clarify, “The determination of whether or not a petition in error is timely will be made by the Supreme Court.” 6 This amendment, in practice, simply means the clerk’s office will file the petition regard less of whether the cost deposit or pauper’s affidavit is included. If the cost deposit or pauper’s affi davit is not received or not timely received, the case will be sent to the conference for a determination as to whether the petition must be dismissed for untimeliness.

RULE 1.5

RULE 1.4(C) Rule 1.4(c) provides that a “peti tion in error, petition for review, or petition for certiorari may be filed either by delivery to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, or by deposit with the United States Postal Service, or by delivery with a third party commercial carrier.” 1 When mailing petitions in error, petitions for review or petitions for certiorari to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for filing using the United States Postal Service or a third-party com mercial carrier, practitioners must be cognizant of the court’s rules regarding when such documents are considered timely filed. 2 Rule 1.4(c) was amended by the court on May 3, 2021, to clarify that when a filer uses a third party commercial carrier to mail a petition in error, petition for review or petition for certiorari, the filer must also ensure that either the cost deposit or a properly executed pauper’s affidavit “has also been mailed or received by the commer cial carrier, conforming to the same requirements for mailing or receipt

Rule 1.5 was amended by the court on June 27, 2022, to mandate that “corporate entities including corporations and limited liabil ity companies that are parties to actions in the Supreme Court or Court of Civil Appeals” can only proceed “if represented by counsel licensed to practice law.” 7 The rule change also clarifies that an “unli censed individual” cannot “enter an appearance or represent any corporate entity in a case before the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals.” 8 Failure to follow this rule “will result in dismissal of the case or a bar to participate in the proceeding, including strik ing filings from the record.” 9 Although the rule change on its face seems obvious, two recent cases – neither of which resulted in any published orders or opin ions – may be the catalyst behind the court’s amendment to the rule. In case number 120,303, “Nina J’s Dispensary, LLC, Pitts, Antonio W. d/b/a Antonio W. Pitts” filed a petition in error, seeking review

FEBRUARY 2023 | 25

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL