Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 24, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,319 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Charles Ray Waswo, Defendant/Appellant, and Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Cottonwood Creek Water & Soil Conservancy District No. 11; and Logan County Soil & Water Conservation District, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Charles Wawso (hereinafter referred to as either “Wawso” or “Landowner”), as a landowner subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowner’s respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowner’s contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowner’s other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowner retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowner’s demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,320 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Charles Waswo and Jane L. Waswo, Defendants/Appellants, and Oklahoma; Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Charles and Jane Wawso (hereinafter referred to as either “the Wawsos” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,321 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Joshua C. Uselton, Defendant/Appellant, and County Commissioners of Logan County; Cottonwood Creek Water & Soil Conservancy District No. 11; and Logan County Soil & Water Conservation District, and Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Joshua Uselton (hereinafter referred to as either “Uselton” or “Landowner”), as a landowner subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowner’s respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowner’s contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowner’s other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowner retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowner’s demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,323 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee v. John L. Haffner, and Sandra A. Haffner, as joint tenants,Defendants/Appellants, and Bank of Western Oklahoma; Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. John and Sandra Haffner (hereinafter referred to as either “the Haffners” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,324 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. R. Lee Woody and Stephanie Woody, Co-Trustees of the Woody Family Trust Dated February 4, 2008, Defendants/Appellants, and Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bay Equity, LLC; Bancfirst; Cottonwood Creek Water & Soil Conservancy District No. 11; and Mundell Farms Owner’s Association, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. R. Lee Woody and Stephanie D. Woody, Co-Trustees of the Woody Family Trust (hereinafter referred to as either “the Woodys” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,325 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. John L. Haffner, and Sandra A. Haffner, as joint tenants, Defendants/Appellants, and Bank of Western Oklahoma; Cimarron Electric Cooperative; Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. John and Sandra Haffner (hereinafter referred to as either “the Haffners” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,326 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Paris Holt, Defendant/Appellant, and Brian Canfield; The Estate of Dollie Ethel Groom, Deceased; Dollie E. Canfield; BarbaraE. Canfield; Barbara E. Chapman; Vaughn E. Groom; Ronald E.Groom; Wanda Jean Stout Groom, Individually and as PersonalRepresentative of the Estate of Stephen E. Groom, Deceased; Board ofCounty Commissioners of Logan County; and Sherri Longnecker,Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the DistrictCourt of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Paris Holt (hereinafter referred to as either “Holt” or “Landowner”), as a landowner subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowner’s respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowner’s contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowner’s other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowner retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowner’s demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122.327 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Erik Williams and Casi Williams, husband and wife; Defendants/Appellants, and Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Cottonwood Creek Water & Soil Conservancy District No. 11; Equity Trust Company, Custodian FBO Jeffrey R. Marshall, IRA, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Erik and Casi Williams (hereinafter referred to as either “the Williamses” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,328 – Dec. 18, 2025 Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Brian Bothroyd and Sandra Bothroyd, Defendants/Appellants, and Board of County Commissioners of Logan County; Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, a division of One Gas, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. Brian and Sandra Bothroyd (hereinafter referred to as either “the Bothroyds” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., ADD concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,329 – Stack Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Plaintiff/Appellee, v. John L. Haffner, and Sandra A. Haffner, as joint tenants, Defendants/Appellants, and Bank of Western Oklahoma; Board ofCounty Commissioners of Logan County; Sherri Longnecker, Treasurer of Logan County, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Phillip C. Corley, Trial Judge. This appeal challenges five Orders entered by the trial court in this eminent domain/condemnation proceeding. Stack Pipeline, LLC, (Plaintiff/Appellee) initiated the underlying action upon filing a Petition for Eminent Domain, seeking to condemn portions of multiple properties for the purpose of constructing and operating a crude oil pipeline. John and Sandra Haffner (hereinafter referred to as either “the Haffners” or “Landowners”), as landowners subject to Stack’s proposed taking, objected to Stack’s Petition for Eminent Domain in the form of six “Exceptions” containing multiple sub-issues, each of which raised substantive and procedural issues regarding Stack’s compliance with applicable legal authority. Stack filed five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on each of Landowners’ respective Exceptions, and the trial court, ultimately, granted every Motion. We find the trial court erred on its grant of summary judgment on a singular sub-issue within Exception No. Four, as the trial court incorrectly overruled Landowners’ contention that Stack could not acquire a perpetual easement per 52 O.S. § 52. We find no error with regard to the remaining sub-issues in Exception No. Four, nor do we find the trial court erred in its grant of Partial Summary Judgment on Landowners’ other Exceptions. The trial court’s August 27, 2021 Order is REVERSED AND the matter is REMANDED WITH DIRECTION to the trial court to enter a Final Journal Entry which conforms with this Opinion. The Orders granting summary judgment on each of the other Exceptions are affirmed. Per the trial court’s March 15, 2024 Order, new Commissioners are to be appointed to determine “just compensation” for the taking with Landowners retaining the right to object to proposed Commissioners and/or instructions at a hearing before the trial court. Landowners’ demand for a jury trial on the issue of property value remains pending at the trial level. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
122,353 – Danny Wilson, individually, and Danny Wilson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda Wilson, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Jerry R. Wilson, a single person, and Jerry R. Wilson, as Personal Representative for Euella Lorene Wilson, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kory Kirkland, Trial Judge. Appellants (Plaintiffs), Danny Wilson and the Estate of Linda Wilson, appeal the June 14, 2024 Journal Entry of the Caddo County District Court, which awarded Appellee (Defendant), Jerry Wilson, a contribution judgment of $46,964.44. The Journal Entry awarded Appellee, the Estate of Euella Wilson, an in personam judgment against Danny Wilson in the amount of $14,045.44 and an in rem judgment against Linda Wilson. The Journal Entry also awarded Appellee, the Estate of Euella Wilson, an in personam judgment against Jerry Wilson (Defendant/Appellee) in the amount of $11,411.92. The district court’s award in favor of the Estate of Euella Wilson for $14,045.44 against Danny and Linda Wilson is AFFIRMED. The district court’s order in favor of the Estate of Euella Wilson and against Jerry Wilson in the amount of 11,411.92 is AFFIRMED. The district court’s award of damages for contribution in the amount of $46,964.44 is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., concur and PRINCE, J., specially concurs. Dec. 19, 2025
122,393 – In re the Marriage of: Amber Carpenter, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Michael Alcorn, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tom Newby, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Amber Carpenter (Mother) appeals from an order modifying child support from Respondent/Appellee Michael Alcorn (Father) for the parties’ minor child. Mother argues that the trial court erred in establishing the effective date of modification. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2025
122,741 – Amphibious Powersports LLP, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Quality Towing, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Honorable Cory Ortega, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Amphibious Powersports LLP (Plaintiff) appeals from an order denying its claims against Defendant/Appellee Quality Towing (Defendant) for wrongful possession and refusal to release a watercraft pursuant to 47 O.S. § 1115.1. We affirm. Opinion by SWINTON, J; GOREE, P.J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Dec. 19, 2025
Division II
122,195 – In the Matter of Ottolene Eakes, Deceased: Otto Bordon, Appellant, vs. Samantha Mooney, Appellee. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Michelle C. Harrington, Special Judge. The appellant, Otto Borden, appeals the court’s order finding that the appellee, Samantha Mooney, was an heir of the deceased, Ottolene Eakes. Upon review, we find that Samantha sufficiently proved that she is an heir pursuant to 84 O.S. § 215. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and WISEMAN, P.J., concurs in result. Dec. 19, 2025
123,111 – M&T Bank, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Vicky L. Arnold, Defendant/Appellant, and Spouse of Vicky L. Arnold, if Married, and Occupants of the Premises, Defendants. Appeal from Order of the District Court of LeFlore County, Oklahoma, Hon. Jonathan K. Sullivan, District Judge. Vicky Arnold appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of M&T Bank. Upon review, we find that summary judgment was properly granted and thereby affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Dec. 22, 2025
123,030 – Ben Van Vacter III and Veronica Hill, Plaintiffs/Appellees, vs. Anevay Resources, LLC, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from an Order of the District Court of Roger Mills County, Hon. Donna L. Dirickson, District Judge. Anevay Resources, LLC (Anevay) appeals the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Ben Van Vacter III and Veronica Hill, as successor co-trustees of the Norris Corbitt Family Trust. Anevay also appeals the court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees. Upon review, we affirm both judgments. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Dec. 22, 2025
Division III
122,962 – In the Matter of L.G., and W.G., Deprived Children, Kenzie Gustin, Respondent/Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Petitioner, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Emily Mueller, Trial Judge. Kenzie Gustin (Mother) seeks review of the trial court’s order, following a jury trial, terminating her parental rights to two children. On appeal, Mother contends the State of Oklahoma (State) failed to meet its burden of proof; the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to provide active efforts to preserve the family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act; the court erred by “presenting” inaccurate evidence for the jury’s deliberation; and Mother’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record, we find the State met its burden that Mother’s continued custody would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children; DHS made active efforts to preserve the Indian family; the inaccurate evidence presented to the jury was harmless error because in all probability, it did not influence the outcome of the case; and applying an objective standard of reasonableness, Mother’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no errors requiring reversal. The order of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights to the children is AFFIRMED. The order is REMANDED for the exclusive purpose of conforming the Order Terminating Parental Rights to the jury’s verdict by checking all boxes that correspond to the verdict form. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and DOWNING, P.J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
123,060 – Courtney Phillips o/b/o Ethelene Whitmore, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Tecumseh Operations, LLC d/b/a Heritage Skilled Nursing and Therapy, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Corporation, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. Appellant Tecumseh Operations, LLC d/b/a Heritage Skilled Nursing and Therapy filed this interlocutory appeal based on the trial court’s denial of its Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration. After de novo review of the record, and the applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
123,253 – John Wesley Davis, Sr., an individual, and the Davis John W. & Patricia J. Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Bryce Binyon, an individual, and Binyon Real Estate, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma. Honorable Leah Edwards, Trial Judge. Appellants John Wesley Davis, Sr. and the Davis John W. & Patricia J. Revocable Trust appeal the trial court’s June 18, 2025 Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Bryce Binyon and Binyon Real Estate, LLC. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Dec. 18, 2025
Division IV
122,939 – Jeremy Sanders, individually and as member of GBR Cattle Company, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Chere Kolar, an individual, and State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Secretary of State, Defendants, and Tim Wishon, Personal Representative of The Estate of Bobby Eugene Wishon, Intervenor. Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County, Hon. Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge. Jeremy Sanders (“Plaintiff”), claiming to be a member of GBR Cattle Company, L.L.C. (“GBR”), filed suit, asserting his interests in the company against the personal representative of the estate of Shirley Wishon, deceased. Tim Wishon (“Intervenor”), as the personal representative of the estate of Bobby Eugene Wishon, the deceased majority member of GBR, intervened in the cause of action and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Order of Dissolution. In his Motions, Intervenor asked the district court to make a finding that GBR had been dissolved prior to the assignment of interests in the company made to Plaintiff, thus Plaintiff had no standing to bring the lawsuit. The district court granted Plaintiff’s Motions in their entirety. Plaintiff now appeals the district court’s order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Order of Dissolution filed by Intervenor. Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Dec. 17, 2025
123,048 – Canen Cullison, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The City of Oklahoma City, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Amy Palumbo, Trial Judge. Plaintiff, Canen Cullison, appeals the district court’s Journal Entry of Judgment sustaining the motion for summary judgment of defendant, The City of Oklahoma City, in this negligence action. We find the district court did not err in finding there were no material issues of fact and City was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the district court’s Journal Entry of Judgment sustaining the motion for summary judgment of defendant, The City of Oklahoma City. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. Dec. 17, 2025
122,781 – In the Matter of the Estate of Paul Robert Phillips, Deceased: Paula Jane Phillips, Carmen Sue Haynes, Robert Ernest Phillips and Tina Marie Somerlott, Appellant, v. Cherry Ann Phillips, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Hon. Grant Sheperd, Trial Judge. In this probate proceeding, the Appellants seek review of an order of the probate court denying their application for the removal of the Appellee as the Personal Representative of the decedent’s estate. Based on the appellate record provided, we conclude the probate court’s order denying the application was not clearly against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Dec. 23, 2025