1997 OK 93, ¶ 9, 943 P.2d at 595. 4 . See C & C Tile Co. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 7 of Tulsa Cty., 1972 OK 137, ¶23, 503 P.2d 554, 559 ("The party plaintiff in the new action must be substantially the same, suing in the same right after a failure other than on the merits.” (citing Haught v. Cont'l Oil Co., 1943 OK 159, 192 Okla. 345, 136 P.2d 691)); Haught, 1943 OK 159, ¶ 17, 192 Okla. 345, 136 P.2d at 693 ("[I]t is generally held that where a new action is brought after the failure of a prior suit, the second suit must be based substantially upon the same cause of action and the parties in each suit must be substantially the same.” (citing 34 Am. Jur. Limitation of Actions § 288, at 232 (1941))). 5 . See Ross v. Kelsey Hayes, Inc., 1991 OK 83,0, ¶8, 11, 825 P.2d 1273, 1274, 1277, 1279 (<HOLDING>). 6 . 12 O.S. § 2011 100. 7 . C & C Tile Co.,
holding that 12 os  100 applies to cases where dismissal was voluntary and without prejudice holding the plain legal prejudice test applies to voluntary dismissal under the code holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter holding that a plaintiff generally may not appeal a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment against him holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice constituted a final order that was appealable