Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 3, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
Division III
122,664 – Warren Power & Machinery, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, v. Steven J. Watson, Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Rebecca B. Nightingale, Trial Judge. In this action for breach of contract, Plaintiff/Appellee/Counter-Appellant, Warren Power & Machinery, Inc., sued Defendant/Appellant/Counter-Appellee, Stephen J. Watson, to collect unpaid rentals due under heavy equipment lease agreements. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and determined damages. The trial court granted judgment to Plaintiff for $44,606.00 in damages. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred when it struck Defendant’s affirmative defenses of force majeure and impossibility of performance and when the court denied Defendant’s requested jury instructions regarding the defense of impossibility and the duty to mitigate. Defendant also contends the court erred when it rejected Defendant’s trial brief which was submitted on the date of trial. Plaintiff counter-appealed contending the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the undisputed amount owed by Defendant to Plaintiff was $75,703.64, less the two payments totaling $13,463.08, for a total amount due and owing of $62,240.56. After reviewing the record, this Court AFFIRMS the judgment. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Nov. 26, 2025
123,291 – In the Matter of the Adoption of: M.M. and R.M., Minor Children, Courtney Moore, Respondent/Appellant, v. Cody and Kourtney Moore, Petitioners/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma. Honorable Shawn S. Taylor, Trial Judge. Appellant, Courtney Moore, appeals from the trial court’s Final Decree of Adoption granting the adoption of M.M and R.M. to Appellees, Cody Moore and Kourtney Moore (collectively Petitioners). On January 15, 2025, Petitioners filed an Application for Final Hearing on Petition for Adoption. The trial court held a hearing on April 8, 2025 and June 10, 2025. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Petitioners met their burden and proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that it was in the best interest of the minors to be adopted by Petitioners. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Nov. 26, 2025
Division IV
123,152 – Mark & Phil, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The City of Piedmont, Oklahoma, an Oklahoma municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Hon. Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Plaintiff, Mark & Phil, LLC (Plaintiff), appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, City of Piedmont (City), on Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus compelling City to approve a final plat for development of “Shenandoah II,” and compelling City to allow Plaintiff to complete a second entrance to that development onto Morgan Road. The trial court found the undisputed facts failed to demonstrate Plaintiff had a clear legal right to compel City to approve the plat, because Plaintiff provided no competent evidence City denied the final plat for improper reason or that denial was an improper exercise of its discretion. We find no error. The trial court also found Plaintiff was not entitled to an order compelling City to allow it to complete the Morgan Road entrance. We dismiss this portion of Plaintiff’s appeal as moot. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to City, and its denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, treated as a motion to vacate. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Dec. 1, 2025