# Cruse v. Board of County Commissioners

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 19, 1995 · 66 O.B.A.J. 4005

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630802

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry CRUSE and Maude Cruse, Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ATOKA COUNTY, Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 19, 1995
- **Citations:** 66 O.B.A.J. 4005; 910 P.2d 998; 1995 OK 143; 1995 Okla. LEXIS 164; 1995 WL 747964
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Summers
- **Judges:** Alma Wilson
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630802

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the "remedial nature and liberal application" of § 100 operate to allow the refiling of a governmental tort claims action within one year from the date the original timely filed governmental tort claims action failed other than on its merits

## Opinion text

SUMMERS, Justice,
concurring,
with whom WATT, Justice joins.
The dissent perceives the majority’s opinion as declaring 51 O.S.1991 § 157(B) a true statute of limitations. I do not read it that way. My view is that even if § 157(B) is a condition on the right to sue, which I believe it is, a defendant is entitled to its protection only until the plaintiff has brought a timely suit. Once a plaintiff has timely sued, satisfying the statute by which the action is created, then § 100 kicks in to allow dismissal and refiling one time. The substantive time bar did not lapse; the right did not die. And that is because the substantive statute was fully satisfied by the original filing. Such is the status of our jurisprudence on allowing § 100 to keep alive claims created only by statute. Amsden v. Johnson, 74 Okla. 295 , 158 P. 1148 (1916) (action to enforce mechanic’s lien); Rock Island Mining Co. v. Allen, 106 Okla. 188 , 233 P. 1060 (1924) (wrongful death action).
Section 100 is broadly written:
If any action is commenced within due time ... the plaintiff ... may commence a new action ... although the time limit for commencing the action shall have expired .... (emphasis mine)
“Any action” is broad enough to include common law actions as well as ones created by statute. “Time limit” is broad enough to include true statutes of limitation as well as statutes conditioning the right to sue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630802. Public record. Not legal advice.