Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2024
Decisions
ANAYA-SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
2024 OK 34
Case Number: 120403
Decided: 05/14/2024
¶0 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified three questions of state law to this Court pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2011, §§ 1601-1611.
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PART.
Rex Travis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Bart J. Robey, Chubbuck, Duncan & Robey, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Thomas H. Crouch, Meagher & Greer, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant/Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified to this Court three questions of law:
1. Where Mr. Smith was injured and killed as a passenger in an employer-owned vehicle that had $7,000,000 of liability insurance and has not shown the claim would exceed $7,000,000, but where Mr. Smith cannot recover under the policy because the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy provision of 85A O.S. § 5, bars suit against the employer, does that vehicle qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of 36 O.S. § 3636(C)?
2. Does 36 O.S. § 3636 permit FADCO, a corporate named insured, to purchase uninsured motorist coverage for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members who qualify as insureds, but to reject uninsured motorist coverage for other persons who qualify as insureds?
3. If FADCO’s insurance policy with Federated violates 36 O.S. § 3636, does the legislative intent or purpose of § 3636 impute the $1,000,000 uninsured motorist coverage policy limit FADCO purchased for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members who qualify as insureds or [does] the $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident minimum uninsured motorist coverage policy limit in § 3636 [apply] to the other persons who qualify as insureds?
¶2 We answer the first question in the affirmative. Where Decedent was injured and killed as a passenger in an employer-owned vehicle with $7,000,000 of liability insurance and no proof was submitted to show the claim would exceed $7,000,000, but where Decedent cannot recover under the policy because the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision of 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 5 bars suit against the employer, the vehicle qualifies as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of 36 O.S.Supp.2014, § 3636(C).
¶3 We answer the second question in the negative and conclude that the plain language of 36 O.S.Supp.2014, § 3636(G) requires a named insured to either elect or reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for all insureds under the policy, treating every insured in the same manner.
¶4 Finally, because the record is undeveloped and the parties did not submit legal arguments pertaining to the third certified question, we decline to answer it for the first time.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA
2024 OK 33
Case Number: SCBD-7443
¶0 Respondent pled guilty to a first time non-repetitive misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol. Respondent collided with two different vehicles, injuring six people, three of whom were children, inflicting significant bodily harm. The Court issued an order of interim suspension in a professional disciplinary action filed under Rule 7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1A. The Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) for a hearing. This matter is before us for final discipline. The PRT and Bar Association recommends a six-month suspension from the date of this Court’s final order. We hold the record supports a finding that the appropriate discipline is a one-year suspension with credit for time served under the interim suspension.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRIFFIN
2024 OK 32
Case Number: SCBD-7650
Decided: 05/06/2024
¶1 Before the Court are (1) the affidavit of Respondent Lee Griffin, filed pursuant to Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow her to resign from the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her right to practice law; and (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
Decision of the Court
¶2 Griffin was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar on September 27, 1996. On April 8, 2024, she filed an Affidavit of Resignation Pending Disciplinary proceedings.
¶3 In her affidavit, Griffin states (a) that she freely and voluntarily renders her resignation, (b) that she has not been subjected to coercion or duress, and (c) that she is aware of the consequences of submitting her resignation.
¶4 Griffin states she is aware that the OBA has opened an investigation into several grievances filed against her in the following matters:
(a) DC-23-193: Grievance by Marianne Tyer. In this client-initiated matter arising from a divorce proceeding, Griffin allegedly failed to disburse funds that had been transferred to her IOLTA account upon the sale of marital property; thereafter, Griffin allegedly failed to maintain funds in the account, and sought to delay the proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of her actions.
(b) DC-23-194: Grievance by Ronald Tyer. In this client-initiated matter arising from a divorce proceeding, Griffin allegedly failed to disburse funds that had been transferred to her IOLTA account upon the sale of marital property; thereafter, Griffin allegedly failed to maintain funds in the account, and sought to delay the proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of her actions.
(c) DC-23-204: Grievance by Patricia Woodall. Client alleged that Griffin neglected and failed to take action to seek visitation rights with grandchild on client’s behalf, even though client had paid attorney fees in advance.
(d) DC-24-27: Grievance by OBA General Counsel. This investigation concerns criminal charges for embezzlement which were filed against Griffin in Delaware County District Court Case No. CF-2024-26.
¶5 Grifffin is aware that if these allegations are proven, they would constitute, at a minimum, a violation of Rules 1.15, 3.3, and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 3-A; Rule 1.15 of the ORPC, 5 O.S. Supp.2023, ch. 1, app. 3-A; and Rule 1.3, RGDP, as well as her oath as an attorney.
¶6 Griffin’s affidavit further states:
a. She is aware that the OBA has the burden of proving the allegations against her, but waives any and all rights to contest the allegations.
b. She is aware that approval of her resignation is within this Court’s discretion.
c. She is familiar with, and agrees to comply with, Rule 9.1 of the RGDP within twenty days following the date that her resignation is approved; that she will comply with Rule 11 of the RGDP as a prerequisite to seeking reinstatement to the practice of law, and that she will make no such application prior to the expiration of five years from the effective date of her resignation.
d. She acknowledges that as a result of her conduct, the OBA’s Client Security Fund may receive claims from her former clients, and she agrees to reimburse the Fund for the principal amounts and statutory interest for claims that it approves before seeking reinstatement to the practice of law.
e. She affirms that she will tender her OBA membership card to the Office of the General Counsel or destroy the card.
f. She acknowledges that she is responsible for paying any costs of these proceedings, which this Court may order her to pay, prior to seeking reinstatement.
g. She affirms that she has had the opportunity to seek the advice of legal counsel in these matters, including her tendered resignation.
¶7 We determine the effective date of Griffin’s resignation to be May 6, 2024.
¶8 This Court finds Griffin’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is in compliance with all the requirements outlined in Rule 8.1 of the RGDP and should be accepted.
¶9 Griffin’s OBA number is 17022. Her official roster address, as shown by OBA records, is P.O. Box 600, Centerton, Arkansas, 72719.
¶10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings is approved.
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and that she make no application for reinstatement to membership in the OBA prior to the expiration of five years from the effective date of this Order. See RGDP Rules 8.2 and 11.1.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, return all client files, and refund unearned fees.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of reinstatement, Griffin shall reimburse the Client Security Fund for any monies expended because of her malfeasance or nonfeasance. See RGDP Rule 11.1(b).
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin reimburse the OBA for the cost of investigating these matters, in the amount of $105.62, within ninety days of the date of this Order.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of May, 2024.
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 31
Decided: 05/06/2024
ORDER
This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2023 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2024. See 2024 OK 16 (SCAD 2024-17, dated March 11, 2024).
Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rules 18(f) and 20(g). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has advised that the interpreters listed in attached Exhibit A have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the credential of each of these interpreters.
This Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the Registered Courtroom Interpreters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective May 6, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of MAY, 2024.
Exhibit A
| Name | Reason |
| Cindy Avila | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Charles Escalante | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Jesus Flores | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Daniela Hernandez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Gisele Jones | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Cesar Leon | 2023 Continuing Education |
| Rosanna Lopez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Juan Martinez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Elvira Miramontes | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Valentina Saldana | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
| Alfredo Sampayo | 2023 Continuing Education |
| Cynthia Santiesteban | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 30
Decided: 05/06/2024
ORDER: This Court previously suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2023 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024. See 2024 OK 11 (SCAD 2024-15, dated March 4, 2024).
Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. I, Rules 20(e) and 23(f). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has advised that the court reporters listed below have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the certificate of each of these reporters.
The Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the certified shorthand reporters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective May 6, 2024.
Shea Aleman CSR #2034
Lisa Buckles CSR #1052
Marlene Johnson CSR #322
Suelynn Morgan CSR #1397
Melissia Prawl CSR #1751
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6TH day of MAY, 2024.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KALKA
2024 OK 29
Case Number: SCBD-7576
Decided: 05/06/2024
¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Joseph Dewayne Kalka (Respondent), OBA No. 33206, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. A, app. 1-A, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. Upon consideration of the Complainant’s application and the Respondent’s affidavit in support of resignation, we find:
1) On March 21, 2024, Respondent submitted his written Affidavit of Resignation from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association pending investigation of a disciplinary proceeding.
2) Respondent’s Affidavit reflects that:
a. The affidavit was freely and voluntarily rendered;
b. He was not subjected to coercion or duress; and
c. He was fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation.
3) Respondent states that although he is aware that the resignation is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, he will treat it as effective on the date of filing his resignation. Respondent is aware of an investigation by the Bar Association regarding the following criminal conviction which is sufficient as a basis for discipline:
a. State of Oklahoma v. Joseph Dewayne Kalka, Lincoln County, Case No. CF-2022-265: On October 26, 2022 Kalka was charged with (Count 1) Domestic Abuse by Attempted Strangulation by strangling or attempting to strangle Laura Kalka, his wife, and (Count 2) Domestic Abuse — a misdemeanor by striking Laura Kalka, his wife, about the head, face and body with his hands and fists.1 On October 13, 2023 Kalka pled guilty to these charges, he received a term of imprisonment with execution of sentence suspended as follows: a term of three (3) years for Count 1 and one (1) year for Count 2; each count to run concurrently one with the other. Kalka was ordered to pay a $100 fine for Count 1 and $100 fine for Count 2.
4) Respondent is aware that a Notice of Criminal Plea of Guilty and Suspended Sentence was filed in this case on November 7, 2023 and that pursuant to Rule 7.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), the documents submitted as exhibits to the Notice are “conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline.”
5) Respondent is further aware that on December 27, 2023, this Honorable Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) to hold a hearing, to make a recommendation on whether final discipline should be imposed, and to make a recommendation of the final decision to be imposed.
6) Respondent is aware that should the PRT find that final discipline should be imposed, his conduct as set forth in the Notice would constitute at a minimum, violations of Rules 8.4 (a) and (b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, a, 3-A and Rule 1.3, RGDP, and his oath as an attorney.
7) Respondent is aware that the burden of proof regarding the allegations set forth in the Complaint and in the above referenced grievances rests upon the Oklahoma Bar Association. However, Respondent waives any and all right to contest these allegations.
8) Respondent is aware that pursuant to Rule 8.2, RGDP, either approval or disapproval of this resignation is within the discretion of Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
9) Respondent is familiar with the provisions of Rule 9.1 RGDP, and he herby agrees to comply with all provisions of Rule 9.1 within twenty (20) days following the Court’s approval of my resignation pending disciplinary proceedings.
10) Respondent acknowledges and agrees that he may be reinstated to the practice of law only upon full compliance with the conditions and procedures prescribed by Rule 11, RGDP, and that he may make no application for reinstatement prior to the expiration of five (5) years from the effective date of the Order approving this Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
11) The official roster address of Respondent as shown by the Oklahoma Bar Association records is: 2511 S. Clay Rd., Yale, OK 74085-6734.
12) Respondent affirmed that he would tender his Oklahoma Bar Association membership card to the office of the General Counsel or destroy it.
13) Respondent acknowledges that he is responsible to reimburse any costs of these proceedings that the Supreme Court orders him to pay prior to seeking reinstatement.
14) Respondent acknowledges that his actions may result in claims against the Client Security Fund, and he agrees to reimburse the fund for any disbursements made because of his actions prior to the filing of any application for reinstatement; and
15) Respondent stated that he had the opportunity to seek and obtain the advice of legal counsel on these matters, including the resignation submitted herein.
16) Having so stated, Respondent requested that he be allowed to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish his right to practice law.
¶2 It is therefore ORDERED that Complainant’s application is approved and Respondent’s resignation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is accepted and approved effective March 21, 2024.
¶3 It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he makes no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to May 5, 2029.
¶4 It is further ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1 app. 1-A, by no later than May 27, 2024.
¶5 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of May, 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF: M.R.
2024 OK 28
Case Number: 120910; Comp. w/120844; 121060
Decided: 04/23/2024
¶0 The appellants are the parents of four children who were adjudicated deprived and, after a jury trial, the trial court terminated their parental rights. Each parent filed a separate appeal of their respective termination orders and both are considered within this opinion. A separate appeal, unrelated to the parties in this case, was made a companion due to a first impression issue concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, presented in Case No. 120,844, and Victoria Rodriguezes’ appeal. Case No. 120,844 is not addressed within this opinion. All three appeals were retained by this Court. We hold that Victoria Rodriguez lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of ICWA and that the trial court’s failure to apply the heightened burden of proof neither violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law nor constituted legal error. As to the remaining issues raised on appeal, we hold that the trial court’s orders terminating parental rights should be affirmed.
AMENDMENT OF RULES 1.260 AND 1.261 OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
2024 OK 27
Decided: 04/22/2024
¶1 Rules 1.260 and 1.261 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ch. 15, app. 1, are hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The remainder of Rule 1.260 and Rule 1.261 is unaffected by the amendment. The amended Rules will be effective June 1, 2024.
¶2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 22nd day of April 2024.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARRS
2024 OK 26
Case Number: SCBD-7599
Decided: 04/15/2024
¶1 Pursuant to Rule 8 (Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings), Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, Respondent submitted an affidavit, filed April 5, 2024, seeking to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law pending disciplinary proceedings. On the same date, Complainant filed an application to this Court for an order approving the resignation of Respondent and an application to assess costs in the amount of $1,468.01. Upon consideration of the matter we find:
1. Respondent executed an affidavit on March 28, 2024, wherein he asks to be allowed to resign his membership in the OBA and relinquish his right to practice law. Respondent is aware that his resignation is subject to the approval of this Court within its discretion and upon its acceptance, he avers he will conduct his affairs accordingly.
2. Respondent’s resignation was freely and voluntarily tendered, he was not subject to coercion or duress, and he was fully aware of the consequences of submitting his resignation.
3. Respondent is aware that formal charges have been filed against him pursuant to Rule 6 in SCBD 7599, alleging two counts of violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, with enhancement based on a prior private reprimand in OBAD No. 2305. Respondent attached a copy of the Complaint, filed January 11, 2024, setting forth the specific allegations against him.
…
¶2 IT IS ORDERED that Complainant’s application for an Order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings of Respondent, Richard David Marrs, is granted, Respondent’s resignation is accepted and approved, and his right to practice law is relinquished as of the date of his affidavit of resignation.
¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name, Richard David Marrs, be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he may not apply for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to expiration of five years from the effective date of this Order.
¶4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with Rule 9.1, of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
¶5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall pay costs in the amount of $1,468.01 to the Oklahoma Bar Association within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 15th day of April, 2024.
FLEIG v. LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP
2024 OK 25
Case Number: 119432
Decided: 04/08/2024
¶0 The appellant, Carl Fleig, lost a lawsuit stemming from a contract dispute over roofing work done in conjunction with the purchase of a house. Subsequently, the trial court awarded $51,331.00 in attorney fees against Fleig. He appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s attorney fee award. We granted certiorari only to address whether the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees evidences that the trial court complied with the directives of State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659. We hold that it does not.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DURBIN II
2024 OK 24
Case Number: SCBD-7528
Decided: 04/08/2024
¶1 On July 21, 2023, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Ronald Edward Durbin, II, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. On March 3, 2024, Complainant filed an amended complaint and verified application for an order for an order of emergency interim suspension pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.2A of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #52 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY v. WALTERS
2024 OK 23
Case Number: 121581
Decided: 04/02/2024
¶0 Several school districts filed an action in the district court, alleging they received insufficient State Aid payments for several years. They sought writs of mandamus to compel the Oklahoma State Board of Education to demand and recoup excessive State Aid payments made to other school districts and pay the underfunded school districts. All parties sought summary judgment. The district court granted the school district intervenors’ motion for summary judgment, concluding the State Board of Education did not have a duty to seek repayment of excessive State Aid payments made to other schools until auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector performed an audit. The school districts appealed. This Court agreed with the district court, holding that the audit used by the State Board of Education when demanding repayment must be performed by auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector. However, the school districts’ filings raised the issue of their standing to judicially compel legislative appropriations, and this Court remanded the case to adjudicate standing. On remand, the parties again filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the appellees’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the school districts failed to establish that they commenced their action before the lapse of any State Aid appropriations from which they sought additional funds. The district court dismissed the case based on the school districts’ lack of standing. The school districts appealed, and this Court retained the appeal. We hold that the school districts have no legally cognizable aggrieved interest, and they lack standing.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KELLY
2024 OK 22
Case Number: SCBD-7628
Decided: 04/01/2024
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Christopher Roberts Kelly filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow him to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
STITT v. TREAT
2024 OK 21
Case Number: 121497
Decided: 04/02/2024
¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking declaratory relief that Respondents lacked authority to validly pass two bills relating to Tribal compacts on behalf of the State. We assume original jurisdiction and deny declaratory relief.
RE: REINSTATEMENT OF CREDENTIAL OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER
2024 OK 20
Decided: 04/01/2024
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters
recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the
following interpreter: Byron Lema be reinstated, as all applicable fees have been paid and the interpreter has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2023 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rules 18 and
20, that the credential of the named interpreter be reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court, effective April 1, 2024.
SCHIEWE v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO
2024 OK 19
Case Number: 121,203
Decided: 03/12/2024
¶0 This case arises out of an airplane crash that occurred in September 2010. Plaintiffs, Jade P. Schiewe and Zachary Pfaff (Pilots) filed suit in Tulsa County District Court against Defendant, Cessna Aircraft Company, for negligently failing to revise its service manual. Cessna filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Pilots’ claims were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). After years of litigation, the Tulsa County District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cessna. We retained Pilots’ appeal to determine whether GARA’s 18-year statute of repose applies.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF TAYLOR
2024 OK 18
Decided: 03/11/2024
¶1 The petitioner, Lyndon C. Taylor, resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association on December 12, 2022, and was stricken from the roll of attorneys on December 16, 2022. On September 26, 2023, Taylor petitioned this Court for reinstatement as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. On January 10, 2024, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended that the attorney be reinstated. Upon consideration of the matter, we find:
1) The petitioner has met all the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement in the Oklahoma Bar Association as set out in Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch.1, app. 1-A.
2) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.
3) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
4) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the good moral character which would entitle him to be reinstated to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition of Lyndon C. Taylor for reinstatement be granted.
¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reinstatement is conditioned upon: 1) the payment of $645.93 in costs associated with these proceedings; and 2) the payment of the 2024 Bar dues. Costs and dues shall be paid within 30 days of the date of this order and reinstatement is conditioned upon payment.
BROWN v. DEMPSTER
2024 OK 17
Case Number: 119,569
Decided: 03/12/2024
¶0 A mother seeks recovery from the loss of her minor child, who drowned when he fell into a neighbor’s swimming pool. She alleged negligence against the owner of the swimming pool. The district court granted the property owner’s motion for summary judgment, holding the owner did not owe a duty to the child. The mother appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, concluding that it was a question of fact for the jury to decide as to whether the swimming pool was an attractive nuisance. This Court granted certiorari. We hold the swimming pool was not an attractive nuisance as a matter of law. However, a question of fact exists as to whether the owner is liable under ordinary premises liability law, precluding summary judgment in favor of the property owner.
RE SUSPENSION OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2024 OK 16
Decided: 03/11/2024
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the credentials of each of the Oklahoma Registered Courtroom Interpreter listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rule 18(c), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACKSON
2024 OK 15
Case Number: SCBD-7581
Decided: 03/04/2024
¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Guy Wade Jackson (Respondent), OBA No. 4586, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. A, app. 1-A, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. Upon consideration of the Complainant’s application and the Respondent’s affidavit in support of resignation, we find:
1) On December 23, 2023, Respondent submitted his written Affidavit of Resignation from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association pending investigation of a disciplinary proceeding.
2) Respondent’s Affidavit reflects that:
a. The affidavit was freely and voluntarily rendered;
b. He was not subjected to coercion or duress; and
c. He was fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation.
3) Respondent states that although he is aware that the resignation is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, he will treat it as effective on the date of filing his resignation. Respondent outlines the grievances which are under investigation by the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association as follows:
a. DC-23-211: Grievance by General Counsel: On September 26, 2023, a Corrected Verified Emergency Application for Citation for Indirect Contempt of Court was filed against Respondent in Oklahoma County Court Case No. CJ-2015-120 (consolidated with CJ-2015-189 and CJ-2019-6289). This Application was based on his continuous, contemptuous refusal to obey multiple court orders related to proceedings attempting to collect judgments in the amount of $73,965.24 and $208,003.53 and an arbitration award in the amount of $9,939,514.03. These judgments and the award were imposed against him for misconduct involving his representation of several clients and trust beneficiaries.1
…
¶2 It is therefore ORDERED that Complainant’s application is
approved and Respondent’s resignation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is accepted and approved effective December 12, 2023.
¶3 It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he makes no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to December 12, 2028.
¶4 It is further ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1 app. 1-A, by no later than March 25, 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF E.J.T.
2024 OK 14
Case Number: 120735
Decided: 03/05/2024
¶0 Mother sought certiorari review from the Court of Civil Appeals’ Opinion affirming the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights following a non-jury trial. On certiorari, Mother preserved only one claim of error, whether the record supports a finding that Mother waived jury trial in a parental termination proceeding. To resolve this question we must determine the following: (1) whether a Court Minute memorializing a contemporaneous court proceeding is sufficient to support a party’s oral consent to waiver of a jury trial in a parental termination proceeding; and (2) whether a party who proceeds to trial, without any demand for jury trial, and without objecting to non-jury trial has waived any right to a jury trial? We answer both questions in the affirmative. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATE CHAMBER OF OKLAHOMA v. COBBS
2024 OK 13
Case Number: 121777
Decided: 03/04/2024
¶1 The Court hereby assumes original jurisdiction pursuant to 34 O.S.2021, § 8 and denies all relief. Title 34 O.S.2021, § 8(B) provides the public with a right to “file a protest as to the constitutionality of the [initiative] petition, by a written notice to the Supreme Court and the proponent or proponents filing the petition.” Subsections (C) and (D) of section 8 provide for a hearing for and against the sufficiency of the petition and for this Court to decide whether such petition is in the form required by the statutes. Initiative Petition No. 446 does not clearly or manifestly violate either the Oklahoma or United States Constitution. See In re Initiative Petition No. 420, State Question No. 804, 2020 OK 9, ¶ 14, 458 P.3d 1088, 1093–94; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77, ¶ 12, 899 P.2d 1145, 1151. Initiative Petition No. 446 is legally sufficient. SeeIn re Initiative Pet. No. 358, 1994 OK 27, ¶ 7, 870 P.2d 782, 785. Respondents may proceed in the gathering of signatures on the initiative petition.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF REED
2024 OK 12
Case Number: SCBD-7552
Decided: 03/05/2024
¶0 Petitioner, Kim Reed, filed a petition for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal unanimously recommended that Petitioner should be reinstated. The Oklahoma Bar Association does not oppose Petitioner’s reinstatement. Upon review, we hold that Petitioner should be reinstated.
RE SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 11
Decided: 03/04/2024
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Court Reporters listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 1, Rules 20(c) and 23(d), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY v. KING
2024 OK 10
Case Number: 121834
Decided: 03/04/2024
ORDER
Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. 7, §4. See also Movants to Quash Multicounty Grand Jury Subpoena v. Dixon, 2008 OK 36, ¶¶5-7, 184 P.3d 546. Respondent, or any other assigned judge, is hereby prohibited from impaneling a grand jury based on the number of signatures certified by the Muskogee County Election Board Secretary (2,661) in GF-2023-1, Muskogee County. The number of certified signatures is insufficient to meet the constitutional requirements to impanel a grand jury under Article 2, Section 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
BRASSFIELD v. STATE
2024 OK 9
Case Number: 119998
Decided: 02/27/2024
¶0 Appellant sought to expunge his arrest records pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 18(A). The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation objected, arguing that Appellant was not qualified for expungement because he had pending charges against him due to an ongoing investigation by the federal government and the Cherokee Tribe. The district court denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari. We hold that an ongoing investigation into potential criminal charges is not a pending charge under Section 18(A), and Appellant qualified to seek expungement.
IN RE AMENDMENT OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.200
2024 OK 8
Decided: 02/26/2024
¶1 The Court hereby amends Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.200, 12 O.S., ch. 15, app. 1, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.
IN RE APPROVAL OF REVISED JUVENILE DEPRIVED UNIFORM ORDERS
2024 OK 7
Decided: 02/12/2024
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached revised juvenile deprived uniform orders effective May 1, 2024. The Court further directs that all judges with juvenile docket responsibilities use the attached forms beginning May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR
IN RE APPROVAL OF UNIFORM JUDGMENT OF ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER
2024 OK 6
Decided: 02/12/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached judgment of adjudication as a youthful offender, effective May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
IN RE APPROVAL OF UNIFORM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PLEA OF GUILTY ORDER/ADDENDUMS
2024 OK 5
Decided: 02/12/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached order and addendums for youthful offender plea of guilty, effective May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
JACKSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE DISTRICT v. KIRKLAND
2024 OK 4
Case Number: 121510
Decided: 02/13/2024
¶0 After an ambulance collided with a turnpike tollbooth, the injured toll-worker filed a lawsuit against the ambulance driver and her employer, the Jackson County Emergency Medical Services District. The medical district sought to dismiss the lawsuit. It argued that it was entitled to governmental immunity, and that the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2021 §155(14) applied to prohibit recovery because the toll-worker had recovered workers compensation benefits. The trial court denied the dismissal. The medical district filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition in this Court to prevent the trial court from proceeding further. We assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition by opinion. We hold that: 1) pursuant to the Okla. Const. art. 10, §9C, although the medical district is a unique entity, it is subject to lawsuits through its board of trustees to the same extent as any Oklahoma municipality or county; and 2) the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2021 §§155(14) et seq., is applicable to preclude recovery.
BASE v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION
2024 OK 3
Case Number: 119366
Decided: 02/06/2024
¶0 This oil and gas case involves a dispute over the amount of royalties that Defendant/Appellee/Respondent Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. (hereinafter “Devon”) has paid to The Eunice S. Justice Amended, Revised, and Restated 1990 Revocable Trust Agreement Executed on the 31st Day of January 2011 (hereinafter “the Trust”) since production commenced in 2017 at nine wells collectively called the Bernhardt Wells. The trustees of the Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners Kaye Frances Base and Arlyn Joe Justice (hereinafter “Trustees”), allege that the Trust is entitled to recover a 3/16 royalty under a 1978 Lease executed between everyone’s predecessors-in-interest; but Devon alleges its interest arises from an earlier 1973 Lease under which the Trust is only entitled to receive the 1/8 royalty that it has paid. The Trustees filed suit against Devon in May of 2019, seeking to quiet title in favor of the 1978 Lease and to obtain pursuant to the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S.2021, §§ 570.1 et seq, both an accounting and a recovery of the 1/16 difference in royalties that Devon has allegedly underpaid. Nearly a year later, Devon sought summary judgment based on the 15-year statute of limitation found in 12 O.S.2021, § 93(4), arguing that Trustees’ quiet title action would have accrued by 1979 and been barred after 1994. The trial court granted Devon’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trustees’ subsequent motion for new trial. Trustees appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed by a 2-1 vote. Trustees then sought review on certiorari, arguing COCA failed to follow both this Court’s numerous precedents holding there is no statute of limitation on an equitable quiet title claim and this Court’s precedent in Claude C. Arnold Non-Operated Royalty Interest Properties v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 2021 OK 4, 485 P.3d 817, regarding when their claims accrued. We previously issued a writ of certiorari and now vacate COCA’s opinion, affirm the trial court’s summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.A.C.
2024 OK 2
Case Number: 120500
Decided: 02/06/2024
¶0 After being diagnosed with various progressive, degenerative diseases, Ward executed an advance directive instructing that her life not be extended by life-sustaining treatment, including artificially administered nutrition and hydration. Ward was later hospitalized and a PEG tube was inserted to provide artificially administered nutrition and hydration, contrary to the terms of her advance directive. After several guardianship proceedings, a trial was held on whether Ward’s PEG tube should remain in place. The trial court held that revocation of an advance directive is weighed by the clear and convincing standard of proof. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed in part, finding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. On certiorari review, we hold that an incapacitated or incompetent person retains the legal right to revoke their advance directive and revocation of an advance directive is weighed by the clear and convincing standard of proof.
STRICKLEN v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND
2024 OK 1
Case Number: 120753
Decided: 01/30/2024
As Corrected: January 31, 2024
¶1 Petitioner brought a claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) based upon his permanent total disability from a combination of previously adjudicated injuries. The Fund argued it was not liable because the phrase “subsequent employer” in 85A O.S.Supp.2019 meant that a claim against the Fund required petitioner’s previously adjudicated injuries to have occurred with an employer other than his employer at the time of his last and most recent injury. Petitioner argued the MITF’s view of “subsequent employer” made the statute an unconstitutional “special law.” The Commission’s administrative law judge and the Commission agreed with the MITF and denied petitioner’s claim. We need not address the constitutional issue raised by the parties because: (1) We conclude the controverted statutory language does not have a meaning which would raise the constitutional issue addressed by the parties; (2) We reverse the Commission’s order that was based upon the erroneous view of the controverted statutory language; and (3) The cause is remanded for additional proceedings before the Commission on petitioner’s claim.