Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 26, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,345 – Deonte’ Lacour, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Emily Smith, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tamera Childers, Trial Judge. In this paternity proceeding, Petitioner/Appellant, Deonte’ LaCour (Father), appeals from the district court’s decree establishing Father’s paternity, determining custody, scheduling visitation and ordering Father to pay child support for the minor child, J.M.L., born March 2020. Father contends the district court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter the decree and to enter ancillary orders requiring DNA testing and compelling financial disclosures and all other orders relating to Father. After reviewing the record, this Court holds the district court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter the decree compelling Father to pay child support, to conduct further proceedings and to enter ancillary orders relating to this paternity proceeding. The district court’s decree is affirmed. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. Aug. 20, 2026
123,207 – Riverford Exploration, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Citizen Energy III, LLC, Defendant/Petitioner. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kory Kirkland, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Citizen Energy III, LLC (Citizen) appeals from an order granting partial summary judgment in an action brought by Plaintiff/Appellee Riverford Exploration, LLC (Riverford) involving two multi-unit horizontal wells drilled by Citizen as operator. In an order dated May 22, 2025, the trial court granted Riverford’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that it is entitled to a 3/16th overriding royalty interest in addition to a 1/8th royalty under a 2005 pooling order. We REVERSE. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., CONCUR. Aug. 24, 2026
Division II
123,106 – Keefeton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Muskogee, Respondent/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Muskogee County, Hon. Orvil Loge, Trial Judge. Keefeton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (Keefeton) appeals the district court’s dismissal order, titled a “journal entry of judgment,” granting the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Muskogee’s (Commissioners) motion to dismiss Keefeton’s amended petition. The dismissal order did not dispose of the Commissioners’ pending counterclaims and was not a final order. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve this appeal, and it is dismissed as premature. APPEAL DISMISSED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; HIXON, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Aug. 20, 2026
Division III
123,954 – In the Matter of: E.W. and M.W., Alleged Deprived Children, Joseph Wilmeth, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Honorable Nichole M. Gillett, Trial Judge. Appellant, Joseph Wilmeth (“Father”), appeals an Order terminating his parental rights to two male children, E.W., born during 2014, and M.W., born during 2023, (“Minor Children”). State alleged Father failed to correct the conditions of mental health instability and lack of proper care and guardianship. Father alleges on appeal there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the State’s allegations for termination. After reviewing the record, we find the jury verdicts for termination of parental rights were supported by clear and convincing evidence and, accordingly, AFFIRM the Order of the trial court terminating Father’s parental rights. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 20, 2026
124,077 – Monica Medina-Molina, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, Defendant/Appellee, and Marilyn Jumper, Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Monica Medina-Molina appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her negligence claims against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Tulsa (“BOCC”) and Marilyn Jumper. Medina-Molina filed the underlying Petition (i.e., “the 2025 Action” -Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. Case No. CJ-2025-5234) following her voluntary dismissal of the 2024 lawsuit against BOCC and Jumper (i.e., “the 2024 Action” – Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. Case No. CJ-2024-4770). The trial court dismissed Medina-Molina’s claims in the 2025 Action due to her failure to comply with the trial court’s ruling in the 2024 Action to “submit a proposed order and to allow the BOCC a 90-day period, undisturbed by litigation, to evaluate [Medina-Molina]’s supplemental materials.” Because Medina-Molina allegedly acted in contravention of the trial court’s ruling in the 2024 Action when she voluntarily dismissed the 2024 Action and immediately thereafter filed the 2025 Action, the trial court granted the BOCC’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12 O.S. § 684(C). We find the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the 2025 Action because Medina-Molina retained the statutory right to voluntarily dismiss the 2024 Action “at any time before pretrial” pursuant to 12 O.S. § 684(A). We further find Medina-Molina complied with the requisite GTCA procedures prior to initiating the 2025 Action. Accordingly, the trial court’s Order granting the BOCC’s Motion to Dismiss the 2025 Action is REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Aug. 20, 2026
Division IV
122,541 – Justin Nelson, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Ashley Reynolds, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. James M. Siderias, Trial Judge. Justin Nelson (Father) appeals the district court’s Order Modifying Final Permanency Order in which the district court denied his request to relocate, modified visitation to award the parents equal visitation time, imputed income to Father, and held that the court did not have the authority to change the child’s first and middle names. We affirm in all respects. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Aug. 21, 2026
123,445 – In the Matter of M.C. and L.C., Alleged Deprived Children: Robert Cumpian, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. In this deprived child proceeding, Appellant Robert Cumpian (Father) appeals from an order entered upon a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his biological children M.C. and L.C., arguing that various procedural errors at trial and Appellee State of Oklahoma’s failure to meet its evidentiary burden require reversal of that order. Based on our review of the law and evidence presented, we conclude the trial court committed no errors of procedure, including the admission of certain evidence and alleged errors pertaining to the jury instructions, that warrant reversal of its order terminating Father’s parental rights. Further, we conclude the jury’s verdict terminating Father’s parental rights and finding that termination was in the best interest of M.C. and L.C. are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering its order terminating Father’s parental rights upon the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, J.; HUBER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, P.J., concurs in result. Aug. 24, 2026
123,653 (Consolidated with Case No. 123,659) – In the Matter of D.C., G.C. & N.C., Alleged Deprived Children, Jamarian Coleman and Nakenya Johnson, Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Kaitlyn G. Allen. Nakenya Johnson, biological mother, and Jamarian Coleman, biological father, appeal the district court’s orders terminating each of their parental rights to the minor children, G.C., D.C., and N.C., on the ground of heinous and shocking abuse of a child and/or failure to protect from heinous and shocking abuse of a child pursuant to 10A O.S.2021 § 1-4-904(A) and (B)(9) after a jury verdict. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Aug. 24, 2026
122,596 – Dana Limited, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. CMI Roadbuilding Inc., Defendant/Appellant. Defendant/appellant, CMI Roadbuilding Inc. (CMI), appeals two decisions from the district court. First, CMI appeals a journal entry, which granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Dana Limited, LLC (Dana Limited). Second, CMI appeals a journal entry of judgment, awarding Dana Limited damages and costs, and determining that Dana Limited was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 936. On review, we determine that issues of material fact exist. As such, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals Division IV by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Aug. 25, 2026