DAVIS v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC.

DAVIS v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS INC.
2010 OK 78
Case Number: 108477
Decided: 11/08/2010

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

CHARLES DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.; MERIDIAN AGGREGATES COMPANY; VENTURE DRILLING COMPANY; and BUCKLEY POWDER COMPANY, Appellees.

ORDER

¶1 Having considered the joint motions of the appellees, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Meridian Aggregates Company, Venture Drilling Company, and Buckley Powder Company (collectively, employers), to dismiss the appellant's, Charles Davis's (employee) appeal, along with the employee's response thereto, WE DETERMINE THAT:

1) On March 16, 2010, a journal entry of judgment was entered in the above styled and numbered cause granting the employers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief. Rather than filing a post-judgment motion within the ten (10) day period allowed, the employee filed a motion for an extension in the trial court on March 30, 2010, the tenth working day following the filing of the journal entry of judgment. The extension was granted and an order denying the motion to reconsider was entered on June 18, 2010. An appeal was filed within thirty (30) days of the entrance of the order. The employers filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

2) Title

3) Absent extraordinary circumstances, pursuant to

4) The statutory scheme accompanied by this Court's own pronouncement through Rule 1.22 specifically address the time for filing an appeal and its jurisdictional nature. The discretionary authority to grant extensions is general in scope. Instructive here is another well-settled canon of law. Where a matter is addressed by two statutes, one specific and the other general, the specific statute governs over the general provision. Rogers v. Quicktrip Corp.,