Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 1, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
122,189 – Donald Wardlow, Administrator of the Estate of Donovan Zachariah Caldwell, deceased; Carrie Murphy, Administrator of the Estate of Lily Marie Murphy, deceased; Jacqueline Turnbull, Administrator of the Estate of Jessica Elaine Swartwout, deceased; LaDonna Jean Wells and Damon Lynn Wells, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Drake Austin Wells, deceased; and Latasha Duncan and Charles Seely, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rhianna Autumn Sky Seely, deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cherokee, Oklahoma; Holloway, Updike & Bellen, Inc.; and Mahan Construction, Inc., Defendants/Appellees. Plaintiffs/Appellants Donald Wardlow, Administrator of the Estate of Donovan Zachariah Caldwell, deceased; Carrie Murphy, Administrator of the Estate of Lily Marie Murphy, deceased; Jacqueline Turnbull, Administrator of the Estate of Jessica Elaine Swartwout, deceased; Ladonna Jean Wells and Damon Lynn Wells, Co-Administrators of the Estate Of Drake Austin Wells, deceased; and Latasha Duncan and Charles Seely, Co-Administrators of the Estate Of Rhianna Autumn Sky Seely, deceased (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal from judgments in favor of Defendants/Appellees Holloway, Updike & Bellen, Inc. (HUB), Mahan Construction, Inc., and the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners (County). Five college students, Plaintiffs’ decedents, were tragically killed in a one-car accident on a bridge, in Cherokee County. After Plaintiffs’ notice of tort claim was deemed denied, they filed their petition against County. Plaintiffs later added claims against HUB and Mahan, which had performed engineering and construction work on the bridge. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mahan and HUB based on the statute of limitations. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to County, finding it was partly exempt from liability under the discretionary function provision of the GTCA and finding no breach of duty in County’s maintenance of a guardrail leading to the bridge. Following a bench trial on the remaining issues, the court found Plaintiffs had failed to prove the railing on the bridge was defective and failed to prove that County’s breach of duty to warn was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ loss. We affirm summary judgment granted to HUB and Mahan and the judgment entered following the bench trial. We reverse the partial summary judgment granted to County based on the discretionary function exemption and we find disputes of material fact remain as to whether the operational decision to locate a water pipe on the bridge and as to whether County breached a duty to maintain the guardrail ahead of the bridge. We remand for trial of those questions. Opinion by SWINTON, J.; GOREE, J., and PRINCE, J., concur. Sept. 25, 2025
122,510 – Contech, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Kudron Ready Mix, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Melissa East, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Contech, Inc., appeals a Journal Entry entered by the trial court denying its request for damages after an alleged breach of contract. Contech filed a Petition seeking monetary damages in the amount of $7,850.27, which it alleged were incurred after the Defendant/Appellee, Kudron Ready Mix, Inc., breached a contract to provide ready-mix concrete at a price specified in a bid received by Contech from Kudron. Contech was awarded a contract for a public works project located at the Kingfisher, Oklahoma, municipal airport and allegedly accepted a bid from Kudron for the cost of concrete that could be mixed and delivered to the project site. After Contech accepted Kudron’s offer, Kudron attempted to require Contech to pay for a fuel surcharge that was not included in the original bid. Contech refused to pay the fuel surcharge and filed this action seeking damages for breach of contract. The trial court determined that there was no contract between the parties. The trial court also did not consider Contech’s claims for fraudulent inducement, detrimental reliance, or promissory estoppel because they were not pled or pursued in a timely manner. The trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and, as a matter of law, the appealed order is free from error. Therefore, we SUMMARILY AFFIRM the trial court’s Journal Entry of Judgment dated August 16, 2024. Opinion by PRINCE, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Sept. 25, 2025
Division II
122,455 – York International Corporation, Successor-By-Merger of York-Luxaire, Inc. a/k/a York Luxaire, Inc.; and Johnson Controls, Inc., Complainants/Appellees, vs. Douglas Warr, Cleveland County Assessor, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the Court of Tax Review. Complainants/Appellees York International Corporation and Johnson Controls, Inc. (collectively, Taxpayer) protested the ad valorem tax assessment issued by Respondent/Appellant Douglas Warr, Cleveland County Assessor, relating to certain real property owned by Taxpayer. Assessor assessed Taxpayer’s property at a value of $64,568,471.00 for tax year 2023. After a trial before its three-judge panel, the Court of Tax Review entered an order determining the fair cash value of Taxpayer’s property to be $32,700,00.00. Assessor appeals, asserting the Court of Tax Review erred in limiting the scope of his fact witness’ testimony concerning valuation determinations to those matters within the witness’ personal observations, and erred in permitting Taxpayer’s use and display of what Taxpayer maintained was a demonstrative aid during trial. We affirm the Court of Tax Review’s valuation of the subject property as of the Assessment Date in the amount of $32,700,000.00. Affirmed. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Sept. 24, 2025
122,780 – In the Matter of: A.H., B.H., B.D., and H.H., Alleged Deprived Children, Darrielle Dulaney, Appellant, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Mark McCormick, Trial Judge. Darrielle Dulaney (Mother) appeals a trial court order terminating her parental rights to her minor children, BH, AH, BD, and HH. The issues on appeal are whether the State of Oklahoma proved both the statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We conclude that State met its burden, and Mother was not denied a fair trial. We affirm the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights, but we remand the matter to the trial court to correct the order to remove the finding of “Other” from the list of uncorrected conditions. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTONS. 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. Sept. 25, 2025
122,820 – Michael Joseph Lee, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Amy Palumbo, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Michael Joseph Lee appeals the trial court’s order granting Defendant Oklahoma Department of Human Services’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. After review and based on the facts alleged by Lee, we conclude the trial court correctly dismissed Lee’s claims pursuant to the Governmental Torts Claims Act. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s dismissal, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. Sept. 30, 2025
122,872 – Reid Family Management, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Southern Resources, Inc., Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Hughes County, Hon. Trisha D. Smith, Trial Judge. Plaintiff Reid Family Management, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order granting Defendant Southern Resources, Inc.’s counter-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also appeals the order denying its motion for reconsideration. The dispute in this case involves determining the rightful owner of certain oil and gas interests in Hughes County. Plaintiff alleges it received ownership of certain oil and gas interests through a specific chain of events and further claims that because it is the rightful owner of the property, it is entitled to proceeds from the well, which is operated by Defendant, pursuant to Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. §§ 570.1-570.15 (PRSA) and Oklahoma’s Oil and Gas Owners’ Lien Act of 2010, 52 O.S. § 549.10. Plaintiff contends Defendant failed to pay it these proceeds. Plaintiff asked the trial court to grant summary judgment against Defendant and order an accounting. The trial court instead granted Defendant’s counter-motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. Based on the record submitted, we do not see error in granting summary judgment to Defendant on marketability of title or denying Plaintiff’s request for recovery of proceeds. We see no abuse of discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and the trial court’s decisions are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs specially. Sept. 30, 2025
Division III
122,184 – Colt McCargish, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Taria Moreland, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma. Honorable Trisha A. Misak, Trial Judge. Taria Moreland (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s February 6, 2024, order wherein the trial court denied her motion to modify custody, modified visitation and child support, denied her motion for contempt against Colt McCargish (Father), and sustained Father’s application for contempt against Mother. Mother also appeals the trial court’s April 11, 2024 order granting Father attorney fees for the prosecution and defense of the contempt citations filed by both parties. As no reversable error of law appears, the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, the opinion more than adequately explains the trial court’s decision, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we SUMMARILY AFFIRM the trial court’s orders PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.202(b), (d), AND (e), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App. 1. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Sept. 25, 2025
122,425 – Tulsa Senior Housing II, LP, d/b/a Northwind Estates, II, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Terrell Wright, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Tammy Bruce, Trial Judge. In this Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) action, Defendant/Appellant, Terrell Wright (Tenant), appeals from the district court’s decision denying Tenant’s motion to vacate the agreed judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Tulsa Senior Housing II, LP, d/b/a Northwind Estates, II (Landlord). Landlord sued to evict Tenant for non-payment of rent. While represented by legal counsel, the parties entered an agreed journal entry of judgment whereby Tenant agreed to pay Landlord $1,000.00 and to vacate within thirty (30) days of judgment. Tenant wrote on the bottom of the judgment, “I am only signing this because I would have to have a jury trial today. I am not ready for a jury trial.” The agreed judgment was filed June 21, 2024. On July 12, 2024, Tenant filed a pro se motion to vacate the agreed judgment. The district court’s order denied Tenant’s motion to vacate and found another similar case between the parties, Case No. SC-2023-12205, should be dismissed as settled. The court held the judgment filed June 21, 2024, remains in effect. After reviewing the record, this Court holds the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Tenant’s motion to vacate. The district court’s order on appeal is AFFIRMED. Opinion by BELL, C.J.; DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. Sept. 25, 2025
122,812 – Citizen Energy III, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Roan Resources LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. City of Tuttle, Oklahoma, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kory Kirkland, Trial Judge. The dispositive issues in this case are whether municipal ordinances instituting fees for oil and gas producers exceed the scope of authority delegated by the legislature to a municipality; and if the ordinances exceed the delegated authority, what remedy, if any, is available to a private corporation to enjoin further collection of fees and to recoup fees previously paid. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge the provisions of the defendant’s municipal code assessing road usage fees, assessing permit/inspection fees, and requiring insurance and a bond to operate. We review de novo the order granting in part and denying in part, the party’s competing motions for summary judgment, as well as review of legal questions involving statutory construction. The trial court held the defendant was within the legislature’s delegated authority to institute both fees. We hold the defendant’s municipal ordinances assessing road usage and permit/inspection fees are within the delegated authority under 52 O.S. 2021 §137.1 and 17 O.S. 2021 §52(B). The trial court held the defendant did not have authority to require insurance and a bond under §137.1, but the court did not award damages to plaintiffs on their money had and received claim. We agree. The defendant did not receive money for insurance or a bond from the plaintiffs for which to reimburse them. AFFIRMED. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; BELL, C.J., and GOREE, J. (sitting by designation), concur. Sept. 25, 2025
Division IV