the Court's analysis for prospective application of a rule of law included consideration of (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the burden likely to be imposed on the administration of legal process by the potential increased volume of curative juridical action; (3
How later courts described this case
- the Court's analysis for prospective application of a rule of law included consideration of (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the burden likely to be imposed on the administration of legal process by the potential increased volume of curative juridical action; (3
- the Court's analysis for prospéc- ; tive application of a rule of law.included consideration of (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the burden likely to be imposed on the administration of legal process by the potential increased volume of curative juridical action; (3
- “When a party’s name and address are reasonably ascertainable from sources available at hand, communication by mail or other means certain to insure actual notice is deemed to be a constitutional prerequisite in every proceeding which affects either a person’s liberty or property interests ”
- mineral interest owners are constitutionally entitled to notice when the formation of a drilling and spacing unit is sought
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAUGER, Justice,
with whom, SUMMERS, Justice, join, dissenting only to the completely prospective application of the opinion.
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of Okla *450 homa delineate the effective date of judicial opinions. Subject to limited exceptions, decisions were given retrospective effect at common law. 1 However, the doctrine enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Ref. Co., 287 U.S. 358, 364 , 53 S.Ct. 145, 148 , 77 L.Ed. 360 , 85 A.L.R. 254 (1932) broadly endorses variations in juristic philosophy involving retrospective and prospective decisions.
My concern is that there be some consistency and predictability in our rulings. Within the last two years, numerous cases including Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc., 695 P.2d 1352, 1356 (Okl.1985); Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Okl.1983); Snethen v. Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, 664 P.2d 377, 382 (Okl. 1983), have been promulgated. In each, the decision was given effect in the immediate case, and prospectively to all other cases, after either the issuance of the mandate, or on a date certain.
The alleged distinctions between collateral and direct attacks do not necessitate a different treatment than that accorded to recent successful appellants 2 because the judgment was void ab initio. 3 If a decision has been adequately foreshadowed, as has the holding in this case, 4 the benefits of the new rule should not be withheld from the prevailing party — nor should similarly situated litigants who properly have preserved the issue on appeal be bypassed, and left unaffected and unprotected in the appellate pipeline. 5
. Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 507 , 93 S.Ct. 876, 877 , 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973).
. Within the last three years, no party has been denied the fruits of the appellate victory.
. See Pointer v. Hill, 536 P.2d 358, 361 (Okl. 1975); and Emery v. Goff, 198 Okl. 534 , 180 P.2d 175, 178 , 171 A.L.R. 457 (1947).
. Bomford v. Socony Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713 (Okl. 1968) was decided 17 years ago.
. Shea v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 51 , 105 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 84 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985); United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 , 102 S.Ct. 2579 , 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982); Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 675 , 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1164 , 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971).