Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Feb. 4, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,815 – Robert J. Miller, Jr., individually, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Ryan Walters, individually and in his personal capacity, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Daman H. Cantrell, Trial Judge. Ryan Walters, designated in his individual and personal capacity, seeks interlocutory review of the January 3, 2025 Tulsa County District Court order denying his motion to dismiss the petition of Robert Miller for claims of defamation and false light. The Tulsa County District Court premised the denial of the motion to dismiss on application of the Oklahoma Citizens’ Participation Act, 12 O.S. Supp.2014 §1434. Based on the record provided no relief is warranted. AFFIRMED. All concur. Jan. 27, 2026
122,549 – Dakota Financial, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michelle Chavez Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Melissa East, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant Michelle Chavez appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Dakota Financial, LLC. The trial court’s detailed order adequately explains the decision and shows no abuse of discretion. We affirm by summary opinion under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d) and (e). Opinion by SWINTON, P.J.; BELL, J., and GOREE, J., concur. Jan. 30, 2026
Division II
122,979 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,981) – Justin Lee Case, Petitioner, vs. B&B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Zenith Insurance Company, and The Workers’ Compensation Commission, Respondents. Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Workers’ Compensation Commission En Banc affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge denying Claimant Justin Lee Case’s request for additional temporary total disability payments, his request for appointment of a certified independent medical examiner for his low back, and his request for payment of independently obtained past and future medical treatments to his low back, including surgery. Claimant appeals this Order. B&B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., and Zenith Insurance Co. (collectively, Employer) appeal the same order claiming the WCC En Banc erred in affirming the ALJ’s decision because the order failed to make a finding on the question of whether Claimant is entitled to additional treatment to his low back and, if he is so entitled, whether there was an intervening injury. The issue before us is whether the WCC’s order is supported by substantial evidence. After review, we find that it is and affirm. We remand the case, however, for the ALJ to make a specific finding as to Claimant’s request for additional low back treatment and Employer’s defenses to that request. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 28, 2026
122,071 – Julia Marie Dwiggins, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Ashley Overton, Defendant/Appellant, and John Does, Occupants, Defendants. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Lincoln County, Hon. John G. Canavan, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellee Julia Dwiggins and Defendant/Appellant Ashley Overton entered into a Farm Lease Purchase Agreement whereby Overton agreed to purchase real property from Dwiggins for a sum of $600,000, payable in four equal installments across a two-year period of time. After Dwiggins initiated this lawsuit to foreclose Overton’s interest in the property for non-payment of the third installment, the parties submitted to mediation and entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Dwiggins moved for summary judgment, arguing Overton’s ongoing breach of the Purchase Agreement and breach of the Settlement Agreement. Overton appeals from the district court’s order granting Dwiggins’ motion and entering judgment in favor of Dwiggins. The material facts are not disputed. Overton failed to satisfy the terms of the settlement agreement and the Judgment in favor of Dwiggins is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by FISCHER, J.; HIXON, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J. concur. Jan. 29, 2026
122,415 – Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. DWB Family Trust, by and through Darrin Wesley Brewer & Samantha R. Brewer, Trustees, Darrin Wesley Brewer; and Samantha R. Brewer, Defendants/Appellees, and Advantage Bank; Occupant(s) of the Premises; Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.; Oklahoma County Treasurer and Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Don Andrews, Trial Judge. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority appeals a judgment in favor of Defendants entered on a jury verdict in this condemnation case. The issue raised concerns accessibility to certain remainder property after construction of the Kickapoo Turnpike. We find no error in refusing to give OTA’s requested modified jury instruction, but refusing to admit OTA’s project plans in existence before the take and impermissibly expanding the scope of the take require reversal. Because we reverse and remand for a new trial, we will not address OTA’s remaining issues on appeal. After review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Feb. 2, 2026
Division III
123,257 – In the Matter of: A.F., A.F., A.F., A.F., Alleged Deprived Children, Lindsey Frazier, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tracy McDaniel, Trial Judge. Lindsey Frazier (Mother) appeals the trial court’s Permanency Review Order filed on May 28, 2025, wherein the trial court determined that both active efforts and reasonable efforts were made. Upon review of the record and applicable law we are not persuaded by Mother’s arguments. AFFIRMED. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Jan. 30, 2026
123,458 – Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Trustee of the Wilfred and Claudette Wright Family Trust, dated December 12, 2010, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Gene Brent and Patsy Brent, Husband and Wife, Defendants/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma. Honorable Sue Nigh, Trial Judge. Gene and Patsy Brent (Defendants/Appellants) have appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissal of third-party defendants, and various discovery rulings. Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Trustee of the Wilfred and Claudette Wright Family Trust dated January 28, 2022 (Plaintiff/Appellee) (hereinafter “2022 Trust”) initiated the underlying declaratory action to determine whether a Right to Purchase Agreement had been triggered by the transfer of property from the Wilfred and Claudette Wright Family Trust dated December 12, 2010 (“2010 Trust”) to the 2022 Trust. The Brents responded with a counterclaim for specific performance of the Right to Purchase Agreement and sought to join the 2010 Trust. The 2022 Trust moved for summary judgment, contending the provisions of the Right to Purchase Agreement did not encompass transfers where the Wrights, settlors and beneficiaries of both trusts, retained the same “beneficial interest” in the property. The 2022 Trust also moved to dismiss the 2010 Trust from the proceedings for misjoinder. We find no error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment concluding the Right to Purchase Agreement had not been triggered by the transfer from the 2010 Trust to the 2022 Trust, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in its discovery rulings. We do find the trial court initially erred in dismissing the Brents’ contract claim against the 2010 Trust but, by affirming the trial court’s holding that the Wrights’ transfer had not triggered the Right to Purchase Agreement, there is no contract claim to be resolved. The underlying judgment is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. Opinion by PRINCE, V.C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Jan. 30, 2026
Division IV
123,223 – In the Matter of X.W., Alleged Deprived Child, Jessica Worley-Maycumber, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Hon. Lisa Shaw, Trial Judge. Jessica Worley-Maycumber (Mother) appeals the trial court’s Order denying her petition to vacate its earlier termination of her parental rights. Mother failed to appear for the trial on the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, and her parental rights were terminated. Mother filed a petition to vacate, asserting that she was not provided adequate notice that her failure to appear could result in the termination of her parental rights and that termination without her being able to be present and attend was arguably unconstitutional. Based on our review of the briefs and appellate record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Mother’s petition to vacate. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Jan. 29, 2026
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 an 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 affirm, though on different grounds. Thus, 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. Substitute Opinion on Rehearing from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HIXON, V.C.J.; BARNES, P.J., and HUBER, J., concur. Feb. 3, 2026