Cornett v. Carr

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Rule 9(a) of the Rules for the District Courts conflicted with 12 O.S. Supp. 2002 § 2004(I) to the extent the rule shortened the statutory 180-day period for service of summons. The court reversed the dismissal of Cornett's action, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, and remanded for completion of service within the remaining statutory period. The court also struck Rule 9(a) and made its decision prospective, applying it to pending cases and cases filed after the opinion.

Holdings

1. Rule 9(a) directly conflicts with § 2004(I) to the extent that it shortens the plaintiff's statutory 180-day period for service of summons. Because the statute prevails over the conflicting court rule, the statutory period is controlling.
2. The 180-day period in § 2004(I) is an outer limit that cannot be judicially reduced; service completed within that period is timely.
3. The district court's dismissal was premature because Cornett still had time remaining under § 2004(I) to issue summons and complete service.
4. Rule 9(a) was stricken from the Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma, and the decision applies prospectively to cases pending or filed after issuance; it does not affect cases dismissed under Rule 9(a) that became final judgments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rule 9(a), Rules for the District Courts, conflicts with 12 O.S. Supp. 2002 § 2004(I) by permitting dismissal before the expiration of the statute's 180-day period for service of process.
2. Whether the district court properly dismissed Cornett's action before the statutory 180-day service period expired.
3. Whether Rule 9(a) should remain in force to the extent it shortens the statutory time for issuing and serving summons.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded