Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2024

June 25, 2024

Decisions

TULSA AMBULATORY PROCEDURE CENTER v. OLMSTEAD
2024 OK 57
Case Number: 119791
Decided: 06/25/2024

0 Medical providers sued a former employee for breach of an employment agreement. Employee filed counterclaims alleging he was owed unpaid wages and bonuses. Providers filed an answer to the counterclaims, raising “failure to state a claim” as the sole affirmative defense. After nearly four-years of litigation, providers attempted to raise, for the first time, that the contract was illegal and therefore void as a matter of law. The lower court issued an order finding providers had waived the affirmative defense, thus precluding its use as shield from liability. Following a trial on the merits, the trial judge determined providers had breached the employment agreement and issued a money judgment of $387,618.36 in favor of employee. Providers appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that refusal to consider providers’ claim of illegality was an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari and now hold the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in striking the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ last-minute effort to raise a new affirmative defense.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MESSERLI
2024 OK 56
Case Number: SCBD-7529
Decided: 06/25/2024

0 The Oklahoma Bar Association instituted this disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1–A. Respondent agreed to certain facts, and a hearing was held before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. We find that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. We conclude that Respondent should be suspended for a period of two years and a day to commence on the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ABDOVEIS
2024 OK 55
Case Number: SCBD-7522
Decided: 06/25/2024

¶0 The Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the Respondent, Michael Robert Abdoveis, with three counts of professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of the Respondent’s conduct warrants a suspension of his law license for a period of one year. The Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER
2024 OK 54
Case Number: SCBD-7680
Decided: 06/24/2024

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Superseding Information and Judgment In A Criminal Case from the following criminal matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma: United States of America v. Blaine Dyer, case no. CR-22-209-001-JD. Respondent Blaine Michael Dyer pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding Information, Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud, in violation of title 18, U.S. Code, sections 1346 and 1343. The court sentenced Respondent to imprisonment for a total term of 60 months. Respondent is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons by noon on July 1, 2024.

DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
2024 OK 53
Case Number: 121694
Decided: 06/25/2024

¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief that Respondents’ contract with a religious charter school violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. Original jurisdiction is assumed, and we grant the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by Petitioner.

MATHIS v. KERR
2024 OK 52
Case Number: 120246
Decided: 06/25/2024

¶0 The plaintiffs/appellants worked for and delivered Amazon packages in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, area for the defendant/appellee, James Kerr. After Kerr fired them, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against him. Kerr sought to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration provisions of the plaintiffs’ employment contracts. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that they could not be compelled to arbitrate because federal and state law precluded arbitration. The trial court disagreed, granted the motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the lawsuit until completion of arbitration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari and hold that: 1) employees who deliver Amazon packages are exempted from arbitration under federal law; and 2) the district court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claims precludes arbitration of those claims under Oklahoma law.

CATHEY v. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR McCURTAIN COUNTY
2024 OK 50
Case Number: 121954
Decided: 06/11/2024

¶0 The Board of County Commissioners for McCurtain County, Oklahoma, approved a ballot proposal of a lodging tax increase to fund a new county hospital to be submitted to the voters. Title 19 O.S. 2021 §383 required the proposal to be published for four weeks in a county newspaper before the election, but the Board did not publish it as required. Instead, the Board, along with the Hospital, engaged in an extensive three-month campaign to inform voters of the measure. The campaign included the use of a multitude of radio advertisements, four billboards, a television interview, multiple newspaper articles, two town hall meetings, three civic club meetings, several social media posts, and one newspaper publication of the proposal two days before the election. After the measure was approved by the voters, a lodging renter and property owner filed a lawsuit in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, seeking to have the election declared null and void due to the lack of newspaper publication. The Hospital sought to have the election upheld. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and Hospital, and against the lodging renter and property owner. The renter and owner appealed and filed a motion for oral argument. We retained the cause, deny the motion for oral argument, and hold that because the county commissioners neglected to follow the statutory publication requirements the voter-approved lodging tax increase is invalid.

HAYES v. PENKOSKI
2024 OK 49
Case Number: 121158
Decided: 06/11/2024

¶0 This appeal originates from a protective order obtained by Petitioners, Sheena Hayes and Morgan Lawrence-Hayes, against Defendant, Richard Penkoski, based primarily on his posts on social media. Defendant appealed and we sua sponte retained the appeal.

REVERSED.

IN RE ADMINISTRATION OF NEXTGEN BAR EXAMINATION
2024 OK 48
Decided: 06/10/2024

¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court, pursuant to its general administrative authority, Okla. Const. art. VII, § 6, and pursuant to its sole authority to regulate the admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, hereby votes to adopt the NextGen Bar Examination in Oklahoma. The Court orders the NextGen Bar Examination to be administered beginning July 1, 2027.

IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2024 OK 45
Case Number: SCBD-7492
Decided: 06/10/2024

The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls and from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1-B, for the year 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Association and the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma by Order of this Court on June 12, 2023, for noncompliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2022. Based on its application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at their May 24, 2024 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement within one year of the suspension order. Further, the Board of Governors declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and their names should therefore be stricken from its membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024. This Court finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024 for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2022.

IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2024 OK 44
Case Number: SCBD-7491
Decided: 06/10/2024

The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls for failure to pay dues as members of the Oklahoma Bar Association for the year 2023.

Pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association (Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §2, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and prohibited from practicing law in the State of Oklahoma by this Court’s Order of June 12, 2023 and thereafter by Correction Order dated June 19, 2023, for failure to pay their 2023 dues in accordance with Article VIII, Section 2 of the Rules. Based upon the application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at its May 24, 2024 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4 of the Rules, at the time of the filing of its application. The Board of Governors further declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and that their names should therefore be stricken from the membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules. This Court further finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for failure to pay their dues as members of the Association for the year 2023.

GALBRAITH v. GALBRAITH
2024 OK 43
Case Number: 121849
Decided: 06/11/2024

0 The co-guardians of an incapacitated ward filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on behalf of their ward. The trial court held generally that the guardian did not have authority to file the petition on behalf of the ward. One of the co-guardians subsequently obtained authorization from the guardianship court to file the petition and then refiled. The wife of the ward filed a motion to dismiss alleging Oklahoma law does not allow a guardian to initiate a divorce on behalf of a ward. The trial court agreed and entered a more detailed judgment specifying the caselaw and statutes it believed supported the motion to dismiss. The guardian appealed the judgment to this Court and we previously retained the matter on our own motion.

BAYOUTH v. DEWBERRY
2024 OK 42
Case Number: 121897
Decided: 06/11/2024

0 This matter is an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of the estate of a deceased co-employee. The dispositive issue concerns whether, for purposes of the exclusive remedy provision under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee, who injures another employee, must be acting within the course and scope of their employment when the incident occurs in order to receive the protection of the exclusive remedy provision. We answer in the affirmative.

PAYTON v APPLEGATE
2024 OK 41
Case Number: 120334
Decided: 06/11/2024

¶0 In a probate matter, the District Court of Wagoner County, the Honorable Dennis Shook, ruled that the intestate decedent’s cattle operation was marital property, not separate property, for purposes of distributing the decedent’s estate. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, reversed. Decedent’s widow sought certiorari review.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED

RANDLE v. CITY OF TULSA
2024 OK 40
Case Number: 121502
Decided: 06/12/2024

¶0 Plaintiffs, survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, brought suit against Defendants seeking abatement of the public nuisance caused by Defendants’ unreasonable, unwarranted, and/or unlawful acts and omissions that began with the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 and continue to this day. Plaintiffs also sought recovery for unjust enrichment for Defendants’ exploitation of the Massacre for their own economic and political gain. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss finding Plaintiffs’ Petition failed to state a justiciable public nuisance claim and failed to allege a legally cognizable abatement remedy and dismissed Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim for failure to cure a defective pleading. Plaintiffs appealed, asserting the district court erred in dismissing both claims. We retained this matter on Plaintiffs’ motion and hold that Plaintiffs’ grievances do not fall within the scope of our state’s public nuisance statute and Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support a claim for the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12 v. STATE
2024 OK 39
Case Number: 121987
Decided: 06/11/2024

¶0 School district filed an application for the Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue extraordinary and declaratory relief to prevent enforcement of rules by the State Board of Education, State Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. Respondents seek to use the rules in enforcement proceedings brought against the school district before the State Board. We assume original jurisdiction, in part, over the controversy. We deny respondents’ motion for oral argument. We hold: (1) State statutes give a local school board power and a type of statutory discretion to supply books for a school library that meet local community standards, and (2) No statute gives the State Board of Education, State Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction the authority to supervise, examine, and control a local school board’s exercise of this discretion when the local school board applies local community standards for books it supplies for a local school library.

IN RE UNIFORM BAR EXAMINATION MINIMUM PASSING SCORE
2024 OK 38
Decided: 05/28/2024

ORDER

¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court, pursuant to its general administrative authority, Okla. Const. art. VII, § 6, and pursuant to its sole authority to regulate the admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, hereby orders that the minimum passing score in Oklahoma for the Uniform Bar Examination shall be 260, effective July 1, 2024.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 28th day of May 2024.

KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.
2024 OK 37
Case Number: 121047
Decided: 05/21/2024

¶0 In a tort action brought against various entities by the widow of the deceased based upon alleged tortfeasor liability by alleged non-employers and after a worker’s compensation award, the employer filed a motion to dismiss a third-party petition filed against employer by one of the defendants. The Honorable Anthony L. Bonner, District Judge, sustained the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed and the appeal was retained by the Supreme Court. We hold: (1) The exclusive remedy and liability language in 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles, but those relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the same physical injury used by a party for a compensable workers’ compensation award; and (2) The language of 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prohibit an employer from creating an indemnity agreement holding others harmless for the employer’s intentional conduct not subject to exclusive workers’ compensation remedies.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARLEAN
2024 OK 36
Case Number: SCBD-7652
Decided: 05/20/2024

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, and Judgment and Sentence in the following matters in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Kelly John Barlean, case no. CF-2021-3557, and State of Oklahoma v. Kelly Barlean, case no. CM-2022-4468. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the charge of felony Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation in case no. CF-2021-3557 was reduced to misdemeanor Domestic Assault and Battery. Following pleas of guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault and battery in the combined cases, the court deferred sentencing for 3 years until January 4, 2026.1

¶2 Rule 7.3 of the RGDP provides: “Upon receipt of the certified copies of Judgment and Sentence on a plea of guilty, order deferring judgment and sentence, indictment or information and the judgment and sentence, the Supreme Court may by order immediately suspend the lawyer from the practice of law until further order of the Court.” Having received certified copies of these papers and orders, this Court orders that Kelly John Barlean is immediately suspended from the practice of law. Kelly John Barlean is directed to show cause, if any, no later than June 4, 2024, why this order of interim suspension should be set aside. See RGDP Rule 7.3. The OBA has until June 18, 2024, to respond.

¶3 Rule 7.2 of the RGDP provides that a certified copy of a plea of guilty, an order deferring judgment and sentence, or information and judgment and sentence of conviction “shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules.” Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the RGDP, Kelly John Barlean has until July 3, 2024, to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be made. The written return of the lawyer shall be verified and expressly state whether a hearing is desired. The lawyer may in the interest of explaining his conduct or by way of mitigating the discipline to be imposed upon him, submit a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The OBA has until July 18, 2024 to respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting the recommendation of discipline.

¶4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT in conference on May 20, 2024.

LATIGO OIL & GAS v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO.
2024 OK 35
Case Number: 120969
Decided: 05/21/2024

0 Latigo Oil & Gas, Inc., filed a Petition for Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, and Injunctive Relief against BP America Production Company to enforce its preferential right to purchase certain mineral interests offered for sale as part of a package-deal by BP to a third party. Prior to trial, Latigo filed an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief requesting the trial court to enjoin BP from selling the burdened interests to the third-party buyer pending trial. The trial court granted Latigo’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief finding the evidence did not show Latigo was likely to succeed on the merits. We granted certiorari and hold the trial court’s grant of injunctive relief was not an abuse of discretion.

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 Griffin 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

NameReason
Cindy Avila2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Charles Escalante2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Jesus Flores2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Daniela Hernandez2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Gisele Jones2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Cesar Leon2023 Continuing Education
Rosanna Lopez2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Juan Martinez2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Elvira Miramontes2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Valentina Saldana2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees
Alfredo Sampayo2023 Continuing Education
Cynthia Santiesteban2023 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

Attachment

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.

Posted in Supreme Court of Oklahoma and tagged , , , , , ,