stating that public interest in protecting state from unwarranted claims and timely settling those that are clearly meritorious convinced Court that post-notice requests should have "serious legal effect"
How later courts described this case
- stating that public interest in protecting state from unwarranted claims and timely settling those that are clearly meritorious convinced Court that post-notice requests should have "serious legal effect"
- holding a governmental entity's request for information after filing a GTCA notice extended the time for filing suit and noting that "[plublic policy would generally favor amendments"
- "the effect [ascribed to an agency's post-notice request for more data is drawn from the government's perceived need for more time to evaluate the completed information about a claim"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Roller v. City of Harrah, 70 O.B.A.J. 3789 (1999)
¶ 6 Harrah argues Bivins is distinguishable on its facts and the parties entered no written agreement to modify the statutory deadlines.
The opinion
WATT, Justice,
with whom HODGES, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I dissent to Part II of today’s opinion for the reasons set out in my dissent in Anderson v. Eichner, 890 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1994).
I dissent to Part III of the opinion because it is contrary to extant GTCA jurisprudence, Trent v. Board of County Commissioners, 755 P.2d 615 (Okla.1988), and its progeny.