The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2023

If a trial court’s interlocutory ruling is so problematic that immediate review is necessary and no adequate remedy on appeal exists, a party may file an application to assume original jurisdiction and seek extraordinary relief from that order.

sure to consult the Supreme Court rules when considering a request to certify an interlocutory order under Section 952(b)(3). Extraordinary Relief Finally, the Supreme Court has expansive original jurisdiction under Article 7, Section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which includes the authority to issue extraordinary writs ( e.g. , writs of mandamus or prohibition). 41 If a trial court’s inter locutory ruling is so problematic that immediate review is necessary and no adequate remedy on appeal exists, a party may file an application to assume original jurisdiction and seek extraordinary relief from that order. As with the certification pro cedure under Section 952(b)(3), the Supreme Court’s exercise of its original jurisdiction is wholly discretionary, and it exercises that discretion quite rarely. Indeed, the relief requested in an original action is, by definition, “extraordinary.” The court is most likely to exercise its original jurisdiction in cases involving the public interest. 42 43 It may also, however, choose to inter vene early in a trial court proceeding

statement of the record and “the reasons why the order should be reviewed in advance of final judg ment.” 37 Notably, this statement must be signed by the trial court. 38 Accordingly, if a lawyer decides to seek certification of an interlocu tory order under Section 952, they would be wise to have this state ment prepared in advance so that it may be signed by the court at the same time as the certification. Much like an appeal of an interlocutory order appealable by right, the review of a certified interlocutory order under Section 952(b)(3) takes place on a much faster timetable than an ordinary appeal. Instead of having six months to prepare the record, the district court has a mere 30 days from the date of the order granting certiorari . 39 The briefing cycle, moreover, is extraordinarily quick: The opening brief must be filed within 20 days of comple tion of the record, the response is due 10 days later, and the reply is due a mere five days after that. 40 Again, these deadlines and unique requirements often take inexperi enced practitioners unaware, so be

order; second, the Supreme Court must itself determine that imme diate review is warranted. 32 And while district courts may be will ing to certify orders for immediate review fairly often, the Supreme Court grants certiorari in such cases very rarely. Indeed, a review of published Supreme Court cases suggests that review under Section 952(b)(3) is granted no more than a couple of times per year. 33 Further, the Supreme Court has made clear that it will not review any order denying a motion for summary judgment under this procedure. 34 Reiterating the fact that review under Section 952(b)(3) is entirely discretionary, the filing required to invoke this procedure in the Supreme Court is termed a “peti tion for certiorari ,” not a “petition in error.” 35 While there is no deadline to request certification in the district court, the petition and requisite fee must be filed within 30 days of the trial court’s certification order. Importantly, a motion for a new trial or a motion for reconsideration will not extend this deadline. 36 The petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a concise

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

SEPTEMBER 2023 | 37

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL