Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Aug. 5, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,494 – Colter Wells and WW Productions, LLC, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants, v. Cade Construction, LP, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jason Reese, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants Colter Wells and WW Productions, LLC, (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal from the denial of their motion to reconsider summary judgment granted to Defendants/Counterclaimants/Appellee Cade Construction, LP. The material facts are undisputed and they show Cade was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reconsider and we therefore affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 29, 2026
123,401 – Randall Wayne Ruth Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel., Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Emmit Tayloe, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Randall Ruth, Jr., seeks review of the Comanche County District Court Order of Dismissal filed August 7, 2025, finding Plaintiff’s Petition was untimely filed and jurisdictionally barred. 47 O.S. Supp.2023 §6-211(E). In May of 2025, Ruth filed a Petition in the district court to appeal an order and notice of revocation/disqualification of both his Class D and commercial driving privileges, which were sent by Service Oklahoma in April of 2024. The appealed order of the Comanche County District Court is AFFIRMED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. July 31, 2026
123,580 – In the Matter of the Estate of: Warren J. Bates, aka Jack Bates, aka Warren Jackson Bates, deceased, Vision Bank, trustee of the McCall’s Chapel School Endowment Trust, Appellant, vs. Michael P. O’Brien, successor personal representative of The Estate of warren J. Bates, aka Jack Bates, aka Warren Jackson Bates, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Honorable Steve Kessinger, Trial Judge. This is the second appeal from a dispute between Appellant, McCall’s Chapel School Endowment Trust, Vision Bank, a charitable residuary beneficiary under the Last Will and Testament (Will) of Warren Jackson Bates, deceased (Decedent) and the non-charitable beneficiaries of the Testamentary Trust (Trust) created under the Will. Appellees, the Decedent’s widow (Pansy), and Decedent’s brother, sister-in-law and nephews (Trust Beneficiaries), are the beneficiaries of the Trust. Appellant appeals from a portion of the district court’s order that allowed the Personal Representative (PR) of the Decedent’s Estate (Estate) to pay fees for accounting services for the months of June and July 2025. Appellant argues the order allowing payment of accounting fees from the Estate, rather than Trust assets, improperly reduces Appellant’s share of the Estate’s residue; is contrary to the Decedent’s intent as expressed in the Will; violates Oklahoma law; and conflicts with the Court of Civil Appeals Opinion in Appellate Case No. 117,724 (cert. denied May 17, 2021; mandated June 16, 2021) (Bates I). Appellant also argues the district court erred when it failed to create a constructive trust in Estate’s favor over non-trust income improperly paid by the PR to the Trust or its beneficiaries. After reviewing the record, this Court AFFIRMS the district court’s order. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 31, 2026
123,737 – Rockey Roberts, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Cane Creek Energy Partners, Defendant/Appellee, Scissortail Energy, Inc., Firehouse Energy, LLC, Frank Jobe, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma. Honorable Pandee Ramirez, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Rocky Roberts, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, Cane Creek Energy Partners, in Plaintiff’s action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff maintains he was injured when his tractor struck a barrel purportedly owned by Defendant, which formerly operated two wells that sent gas to a metering station on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff also sued other defendants, including the current well operator and current owner of the metering station. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, denied Plaintiff’s motion for new trial and certified its order for immediate appeal pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §994(A). We hold Plaintiff failed to show Defendant owed him any duty to protect against dangers on or around the subject wells or gas metering sites at the time Plaintiff was injured. The undisputed deposition testimony confirms Defendant transferred its leasehold interests in 2011; Corporation Commission records show Defendant transferred operatorship of the two wells in 2017. Plaintiff was injured in 2018. “[T]he new operator assumes all responsibility for the wells specified within the boundaries of the outlined area.” OAC §165:10-1-15(a)(2), which includes removing trash and debris from the well sites. OAC §165:10-3-17(c)()1) & (2). AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur. July 31, 2026
123,785 – Paulette Taylor, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. San Miguel School of Tulsa, Inc., Roger Carter, and John Dowell, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy Priddy, Trial Judge. The pleading states a valid claim for breach of written contract against Appellee, San Miguel School. The pleading fails to state a claim against agents of the school. The dismissal order is AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. July 31, 2026
123,913 – Galatians Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellee, v. Khalide A. Lowe, Sr., Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kevin Gray, Trial Judge. Under totality of the circumstances, Defendant did not receive due process of law in connection with notice of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The order denying Defendant’s motion to vacate is REVERSED. Opinion by GOREE, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. July 31, 2026
Division II
Division III
123,056 – Amanda Joice, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ascension St. John, and Danny Malott, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Amanda Joice (“Joice”), appeals two Orders, one denying a Petition to Vacate and the other denying a Motion to Reconsider. Both were filed after the trial court dismissed the claims she filed against Defendants/Appellees, Ascension St. John (“St. John”) and Danny Malott (“Malott”), with the exception of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Malott. St. John argued that it was not the properly named defendant because it was not a legal entity and that two of the claims asserted, namely false imprisonment and assault, were barred by the statute of limitations. St. John argued that Joice did not file her Petition until more than a year had passed after the alleged incident occurred. Joice claimed that, due to her attorney’s abandonment of her case, the Orders dismissing claims should be vacated and the statute of limitations should be tolled. After a review of the record and law, we find that the Order denying Joice’s Petition to Vacate should be affirmed because St. John was not the proper party to be sued and Joice produced no evidence indicating that St. John is a legal entity. We, however, reverse the Order denying the Motion to Reconsider regarding claims against Malott because of Joice’s allegations of attorney abandonment. We find that her claim of attorney abandonment is a disputed issue of fact which must be resolved before any claims against Malott may be dismissed. We, therefore, AFFIRM IN PART, and REVERSE IN PART, the Orders denying Joice’s motions to vacate AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur.
123,263 – In Re the Marriage of: Jared Boehm, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Brittney Boehm, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s order disqualifying Appellant/Petitioner Jared Boehm’s (Father) counsel from representing him in post-decree custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Rule 1.9(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Father argued the district court erred by granting the motion to disqualify without conducting an evidentiary hearing or making the findings required by Oklahoma law. On review, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the district court was not relieved of its obligation to independently determine whether disqualification was warranted, notwithstanding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s prior observation of a potential conflict in related adoption proceedings. Because the district court failed to conduct the required evidentiary hearing and make the factual findings necessary to permit meaningful appellate review, the Court of Civil Appeals REVERSED the disqualification order and REMANDED for further proceedings. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur.
123,569 – Stacy Alan and Joyce Lynn Bean; Carilyn Joyce Beebe, individually, and as trustee of the Joyce Beebe Trust; Greg and Teena Bergdall; Lloyd and Peggy Bixler; Kelly Craig; Merle and Kim Dennett; Lora, Dierksen; vera m. Dierksen, individually, and as trustee of the Loren R. Dierksen Trust; Loren r. Dierksen, individually, and as trustee of the Vera M. Dierksen Trust; Kelly and Sylvia Earhart; Eric M. and Laura Hofferber; Gary and Suzanne Hunter, Cindy Mcnaughton; Jenny Root; Donald and Lea Anne Smith; J. Scott Witty and Thu C. Turner; Kent Walker; Reid and Maddie Weber; Kenneth Wehrenberg; and Shirley A. West, individually, and as trustee of the Shirley A. West Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Skeleton Creek Energy Center, LLC.; Nextera Energy Resources, LLC; City of Enid, Oklahoma; and Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals was the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants/Appellees Skeleton Creek Energy Center, LLC, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (the “Companies”), the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County (“BOCC”), and the City of Enid on the claims brought by Plaintiffs/Appellants (“Landowners”). Landowners challenged the Companies’ construction of a solar energy facility near their property, seeking declaratory relief that the facility violated existing zoning regulations and an injunction preventing its operation. All Defendants filed respective motions for summary judgment arguing that BOCC had exclusive discretion to interpret and enforce the zoning regulations and had exercised that discretion by executing a Road Management Agreement with Companies, in which BOCC represented that the facility did not violate the zoning regulations. The Court of Civil Appeals disagreed, holding that neither the record nor Defendants’ legal arguments established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There was no dispute that the plain language of the applicable zoning regulations did not allow a solar energy generation facility in the project’s location, and Defendants’ argument did not support the legal proposition that a contract between BOCC and the Companies could supersede duly promulgated zoning regulations. The Court emphasized that its decision did not determine whether the Project ultimately complied with the zoning regulations, but only that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should have been denied on the record and arguments presented. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and SWINTON, J. (sitting by designation), concur.
123,727 – Amanda Joice, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ryan Olsen, ESQ. and Logan & Lowry, LLP, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable William D. LaFortune, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Amanda Joice (“Joice”), appeals a Journal Entry of Judgment dismissing her legal malpractice action with prejudice against the Defendants/Appellees, Ryan Olsen, Esq. & Logan & Lowery, LLP (“Olsen”). Joice hired Olsen to represent her, but Olsen ceased representation of Joice and Joice claimed she was forced to pursue her claims pro se as a result. She filed a Petition for Legal Malpractice alleging Olsen failed to diligently prosecute her civil action, failed to preserve evidence, failed to maintain communication, and failed to give proper advice. As a result, she claimed she suffered a loss of legal rights and remedies, emotional distress, and financial loss. Olsen filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon alleged improper venue and failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. We find dismissal was appropriate on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted at this time. We, however, find the dismissal should have been without prejudice. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur.
Division IV
122,845 – Vesta Torlow Ballah, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Daniel Zoeboi Ballah, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Michael Tupper, Trial Judge. Vesta Torlow Ballah appeals an Oklahoma district court order transferring venue and dismissing her petition in light of another pending divorce action in Minnesota. The issue before us is whether the Oklahoma district court erred in transferring and dismissing this case under Oklahoma’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), located at 43 O.S.2021 §§ 551-101 through 551-402. On review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. July 29, 2026