Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decisions
BAILEY v. STATE ex rel. BD. OF TESTS FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG INFLUENCE
2022 OK 50, 118532
Decided: 05/24/2022
¶0 Plaintiffs filed an action in the District Court challenging rules adopted by the Oklahoma Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence at one of its meetings. Those rules were subsequently used by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety in actions to revoke the plaintiffs’ driver’s licenses. The Honorable Thomas E. Prince, District Judge, for the District Court of Oklahoma County, held an evidentiary hearing and concluded (1) the Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and (2) rules adopted by the Board at its meeting were invalid. Defendants appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals concluded a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act did not occur and reversed the District Court. The plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to review the opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals. We previously granted certiorari. We hold: The evidence was insufficient to make a prima facie case that the Board’s Director willfully violated the Open Meeting Act when he failed to send the email notice of the special meeting to the Secretary of State.
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
2022 OK 49, 120276
Decided: 05/24/2022
¶0 The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority requests that this Court assume original jurisdiction and approve the issuance of ratepayer-backed bonds pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act, 74 O.S.2021, ch. 110A-1, §§ 9070-9081. The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority seeks to issue bonds to cover the debt incurred by Summit Utilities Oklahoma from unprecedented fuel costs during the February 2021 winter weather event. Summit Utilities Oklahoma’s ratepayers would then fund the bond payments through a monthly charge. The ratepayer-backed bonds would allow customers to pay their utility bills at a lower amount over a longer period of time. No protestants challenged the proposed bonds. We assume original jurisdiction and hold the ratepayer-backed bonds were properly authorized under the Act and are constitutional.
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
2022 OK 48 120275
Decided: 05/24/2022
¶0 The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority requests that this Court assume original jurisdiction and approve the issuance of ratepayer-backed bonds pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act, 74 O.S.2021, ch. 110A-1, §§ 9070-9081. The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority seeks to issue bonds to cover the debt incurred by Public Service Company of Oklahoma from unprecedented fuel costs during the February 2021 winter weather event. Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s ratepayers would then fund the bond payments through a monthly charge. The ratepayer-backed bonds would allow customers to pay their utility bills at a lower amount over a longer period of time. No protestants challenged the proposed bonds. We assume original jurisdiction and hold the ratepayer-backed bonds were properly authorized under the Act and are constitutional.
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
2022 OK 47, 120274
Decided: 05/24/2022
¶0 The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority requests that this Court assume original jurisdiction and approve the issuance of ratepayer-backed bonds pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act, 74 O.S.2021, ch. 110A-1, §§ 9070-9081. The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority seeks to issue bonds to cover the debt incurred by Oklahoma Natural Gas Company from unprecedented fuel costs during the February 2021 winter weather event. Oklahoma Natural Gas Company’s ratepayers would then fund the bond payments through a monthly charge. The ratepayer-backed bonds would allow customers to pay their utility bills at a lower amount over a longer period of time. Protestants challenged the proposed bonds on several grounds, focusing on the constitutionality of the bonds. We assume original jurisdiction and hold the ratepayer-backed bonds were properly authorized under the Act and are constitutional.
2022 OK 38, 119984; Comp. w/119927
Decided 04/19/2022
ORDER 5/9/2022
Upon consideration of the respondents’ Petition for Rehearing or Clarification filed on April 27, 2022, it is hereby ordered that the Petition for Rehearing or Clarification filed by the respondents be granted for the limited purpose of:
1) striking Section 4(15) of the Initiative Petition because it references, relies on and interrelates to Section 5 which we previously struck in Tay v. Green, 2022 OK 38;
2) striking the phrase “and individual criminal record expungement” from the gist at issue because we removed the criminal record expungement process when we struck Section 5; and
3) directing the proponents of the measure, who have the duty to submit the measure to the Oklahoma Secretary of State, to submit a revised measure which complies with our opinion in Tay v. Green, 2022 OK 38. Title 34 O.S. 2011 §9; Okla. Sup. Ct. Rules, 5 O.S. 2011, App. 1 Rule 1.194.
The petitioner’s motion for rehearing filed April 29, 2022, is hereby denied. In all other respects the opinion will remain unchanged. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THE 9th DAY OF May, 2022.
/S/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
CONCUR: DARBY, C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ.
CONCUR IN RESULT: KANE, V.C.J., ROWE, KUEHN, JJ.
¶ 0 This original proceeding determines the legal sufficiency of State Question No. 819, Initiative Petition No. 433, which seeks to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 32, which would legalize, regulate, and tax the recreational use of marijuana by adults age 21 years and older. Petitioner, Paul Tay, alleges that State Question No. 819, Petition No. 433 is unconstitutional for four reasons: (1) it is preempted by federal law; (2) signatures gathered on and elections held on tribal land would be invalid; (3) it violates the doctrine of non-retroactivity in post-conviction proceedings; and (4) the proposed gist is insufficient. Upon review, we hold Petitioner has not established clear or manifest facial unconstitutionality regarding the proposition’s provisions; however, because the gist is insufficient and misleading with respect to Section 5, we invoke the severability clause in Section 9 and strike Section 5 and any reference to the stricken provision in the gist. State Question No. 819, Initiative Petition No. 433, as severed, is legally sufficient for submission to Oklahomans for voting.
COATES v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO.
2022 OK 45, 119571 Decided 05/03/2022
¶0 John Randall Coates (Plaintiff/Appellant and Counter-Appellee) brought an action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against Progressive Direct Insurance Company (Defendant/Appellee and Counter-Appellant). A motorcycle collision in which motorcyclist Coates was injured is the basis of the actions. Coates was insured by Progressive under a motorcycle policy, an auto policy, and a policy providing UM coverage. Coates moved for partial summary judgment regarding his entitlement to uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Progressive moved for summary judgment regarding Coates’ bad faith claim. Coates sought more time to conduct discovery to address Progressive’s counterclaim on bad faith. The trial court granted Coates’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, allowing his UM claim against Progressive. The trial court also granted Progressive’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Coates’ claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court denied Coates’ Motion for Additional Time to Respond. We retained the appeal. We affirm the District Court’s decision granting Coates’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the UM claim. We reverse the decisions granting Progressive’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Coates additional time to respond to that motion.
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF THE OKLA. DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY
2022 OK 41, 120106
Decided 05/03/2022
¶0 The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority requested that this Court assume original jurisdiction and approve the issuance of ratepayer-backed bonds pursuant to the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act, 74 O.S.2021, ch. 110A-1, §§ 9070-9081. The Oklahoma Development Finance Authority seeks to issue bonds to cover the debt incurred by Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company from unprecedented fuel costs during the February 2021 winter weather event. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company’s ratepayers would then fund the bond payments through a monthly charge. The ratepayer-backed bonds would allow customers to pay their utility bills at a lower amount over a longer period of time. Protestors challenged the proposed bonds on several grounds, focusing on the constitutionality of the bonds. We assume original jurisdiction and hold the ratepayer-backed bonds were properly authorized under the Act and are constitutional.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES v. WOLLA OILFIELD SERVICES
2022 OK 40, 120039
Decided 05/03/2022
¶0 The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified two questions of state law which have been addressed by this Court pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2021, §§ 1601-1611.
RE REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2022 OK 44, SCAD-2022-21
Decided 05/02/2022
This Court previously suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2021 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2022. See 2022 OK 21 (SCAD 2022-11, dated March 7, 2022).
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 2, 2022.
| Ronda Case Connie Neer Mark Woods | CSR #1747 CSR #1737 CSR #1322 |
RE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2022 OK 43, SCAD-2022-20
Decided 05/02/2022
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporters named below be reinstated as they have complied with the continuing education requirements for 2021 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2022 and have paid all applicable fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. l, Rules 20 and 23, the certificates of the following shorthand reporters are reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court:
| Name | CSR # | Effective Date of Reinstatement |
| Kortney Houts Monique McAllister Kimberly Morris | 1804 1962 1470 | March 31, 2022 April 13, 2022 April 13, 2022 |
RE REVOCATION OF CREDENTIALS OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2022 OK 42, SCAD-2022-19
Decided 05/02/2022
ORDERRE
This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2021 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2022. See 2022 OK 20 (SCAD 2022-10, dated March 7, 2022).
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 below 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 2, 2022.
| Claudia Blevins |
| Lila Garcia |
| Alejandro Miranda |
| Tou Yang |
2022 OK 38, 119984; Comp. w/119927
Decided 04/19/2022
¶ 0 This original proceeding determines the legal sufficiency of State Question No. 819, Initiative Petition No. 433, which seeks to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 32, which would legalize, regulate, and tax the recreational use of marijuana by adults age 21 years and older. Petitioner, Paul Tay, alleges that State Question No. 819, Petition No. 433 is unconstitutional for four reasons: (1) it is preempted by federal law; (2) signatures gathered on and elections held on tribal land would be invalid; (3) it violates the doctrine of non-retroactivity in post-conviction proceedings; and (4) the proposed gist is insufficient. Upon review, we hold Petitioner has not established clear or manifest facial unconstitutionality regarding the proposition’s provisions; however, because the gist is insufficient and misleading with respect to Section 5, we invoke the severability clause in Section 9 and strike Section 5 and any reference to the stricken provision in the gist. State Question No. 819, Initiative Petition No. 433, as severed, is legally sufficient for submission to Oklahomans for voting.
TAY v. GREEN
2022 OK 37, 119927; Comp. w/119984Decided 04/19/2022
¶ 0 This original proceeding declares a challenge against the legal sufficiency of State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432. State Question 818, Petition No. 432 seeks to create a new article to the Oklahoma Constitution, Article 31, which would (1) replace the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority with a new state agency–the “Oklahoma State Cannabis Commission” and define its duties; and (2) expand the statutory framework regarding regulation and taxation of medical marijuana. Petitioner, Paul Tay, alleges that State Question No. 818, Petition No. 432 is unconstitutional for three reasons: (1) it is preempted by federal law; (2) signatures gathered on and elections held on tribal land would be invalid; and (3) its gist is insufficient. We hold Petitioner has failed to establish clear or manifest facial unconstitutionality. State Question No. 818, Initiative Petition No. 432 is legally sufficient for submission to Oklahomans for voting.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF HARVISON
2022 OK 36, SCBD-7166
Decided 04/19/2022
¶ 0 Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his voluntary resignation from the roll of attorneys in 2016. Petitioner was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 2008. The following year, he moved to another state to serve as an active duty officer with the United States Army Judge Advocate Corps (JAG). Petitioner’s Oklahoma license served as his required state licensure from 2009 through 2015, the year he was admitted to practice in Utah where he resided. In 2016, Petitioner submitted his voluntary resignation to the OBA for several reasons, he no longer needed to rely on his Oklahoma licensure to serve in JAG, he had not resided in Oklahoma since 2009 and he had no plans to return to this state to practice law. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was in good standing, he was not under investigation by the OBA for any ethical violation, and he had never been disciplined or disbarred by this Court. Petitioner has recently retired from the military and has relocated to Oklahoma where he desires to resume the practice of law in this state.
NICHOLSON v. STITT
2022 OK 35, 119270
Decided 04/19/2022
¶0 Plaintiffs/Appellants Jason Nicholson, Justin Hooper, Cael Burgess, and Derek Hair (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their claims for money had and received against Defendants/Appellees Governor Kevin Stitt and certain district attorneys and municipalities which are alleged to be located within the boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Plaintiffs claim that, according to McGirt v. Oklahoma , ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the State and municipalities did not have jurisdiction to prosecute them for crimes committed on the Creek Reservation. Plaintiffs argue their convictions are void ab initio and seek the return of fines and fees they paid to the State and municipalities. We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal. Plaintiffs’ criminal judgments and sentences have not been vacated pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, 22 O.S.2011 & Supp.2014 §§ 1080-1089. As a result, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for money had and received.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GEORGE
2022 OK 34, SCBD-7085
Decided 04/12/2022
¶0 Respondent is a senior attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and a member in good standing of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent based on professional discipline he received in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Respondent received a private reprimand for a letter he had written to the judges of the Tenth Circuit expressing displeasure with a ruling before that Court. The Bar recommended Respondent receive an equal or lesser discipline than that imposed by the Tenth Circuit. After a de novo review, this Court holds that no further discipline is warranted herein.
STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS v. IDLEMAN
2022 OK 33, 119742
Decided 04/12/2022
¶0 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Board) filed a formal complaint and recommendation of discipline against the Respondent, Kimberly Idleman (Idleman), pursuant to 20 O.S.2021 § 1502 (A)(4) and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, (the Rules) 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. The formal complaint against Respondent was based on referrals by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) arising out of her work as a certified shorthand reporter, including non-completion of transcripts and significant delays in the completion of transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings in the District Court of Tillman County and the District Court of Jackson County, respectively, as well as allegations that she conducted herself in an unreliable and unprofessional manner. Despite proper service of the formal complaint and notice of the disciplinary hearing before the Board, Respondent did not respond to the formal complaint or appear at the hearing. The Board recommended the revocation of Respondent’s license. Upon a de novo review, we hold the failure of this court reporter to complete and to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, and the resulting ramifications therefrom, warrants license revocation.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INCOME TAX PROTEST OF RAYTHEON COMPANY
2022 OK 32, 116358
Decided 04/05/2022
¶ 0 Corporate taxpayer’s 2012 income tax return was due on March 15, 2013. Taxpayer filed its return on September 27, 2013, after securing a statutorily authorized extension of the deadline. Taxpayer later discovered that the return overstated the company’s annual income based upon the inadvertent inclusion of Arizona property sales. The taxpayer filed an amended 2012 return on September 27, 2016, claiming a refund of $321,444.00. The Oklahoma Tax Commission denied the refund claim, reasoning taxpayer submitted its demand more than three years after paying the taxes. An administrative law judge found the claimed refund was time barred under 68 O.S.2011, § 2373 , and the Commissioners affirmed this finding. Taxpayer appealed and we retained the matter. We now reverse, finding the taxpayer timely brought the claim for refund, having paid taxes to the Oklahoma Tax Commission upon filing its amended original return with a proper extension.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
2022 OK 31, 119868
Decided 04/05/2022
¶ 0 Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority seeks to enter into a federal loan agreement and notes to finance rural highway improvement projects. In accordance with 73 O.S.2021, ch. 6, § 350.1 and 20 O.S.2021, ch. 1, § 14.1 , the OCIA filed an application in this Court seeking approval of the transaction. No objections were filed. This Court accepted original jurisdiction to determine the validity of the proposed notes.
IN RE: STATE QUESTION No. 820 INITIATIVE PETITION No. 434
2022 OK 30, 120170
Decided 03/28/2022
¶1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4; 34 O.S.2021, § 8 , https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc (follow hyperlink titled “General Provisions”); In re Initiative Petition No. 409, State Question No. 785 , 2016 OK 51 , ¶ 2, 376 P.3d 250 , 252. Petitioner Jed Green challenges the legal sufficiency of State Question No. 820, Initiative Petition No. 434. Upon review, we hold that State Question No. 820 is constitutionally sufficient and its gist sufficiently informs signers of its intentions for the initiative petition to be submitted to the people of Oklahoma.