Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Oct. 22, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
122,550 – Oklahoma Youth Literacy Program, Inc., d/b/a Infinity Generation Preparatory School, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Department of Labor and Vanessa Anaya, Respondents/Appellees. The Oklahoma Youth Literacy Program (OKYLP) appeals the district court’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s final agency determination that Vanessa Anaya, a former employee of OKYLP, was entitled to regular pay in the amount of $10,498.80 and an equal amount of liquidated damages. Upon review, we find that the final agency determination was supported by substantial evidence and thereby affirm. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Natalie Mai, District Judge. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by BLACKWELL, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. October 16, 2025
122,330 – In the Matter of the Adoption of L.R.L., a minor child: Kaylyn Mae Jordan, Appellant, vs. Jedidiah Lesley and Brittani Lesley, Appellees. Appeal from Order of the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Abby Rogers. In this stepparent adoption proceeding, Kaylyn Mae Jordan (Mother) appeals from the district court’s entry of a final decree of adoption of minor child LRL by Brittani Lesley (Stepmother). Mother claims that the district court lacked proper venue to enter its decree. Mother also claims that the district court erred in finding that she failed to maintain a substantial and positive relationship with LRL in twelve consecutive months of the fourteen months preceding the filing of the adoption such that her consent to adoption was unnecessary. The record establishes that the District Court of Bryan County was a proper venue for instituting the adoption of LRL without Mother’s consent. The district court’s determinations related to the adoption are supported in the record by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals Division II by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., dissents. October 17, 2025
Division III
Division IV
122,459 – Brenda S. Burchette, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Ottawa County, Hon. Jennifer McAffrey, Trial Judge. Plaintiff, Brenda S. Burchette, filed suit against defendant, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, (OESC) for injuries sustained on OESC’s premises. The trial court granted OESC’s motion for summary judgment and Burchette appeals. We find there is an issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. We find the trial court erred in finding there are no issues of material fact and OESC was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We reverse the trial court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of OESC and against Burchette and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J., and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. October 15, 2025
122,796 – James Elder Nimmo II, an individual, and Shannon Rene Nimmo, an individual, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc., a foreign corporation, A Newark Firm, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. An individual named James Nimmo was a named party in an action filed in a federal court that resulted in a judgment against that individual. Plaintiffs allege in this action that Defendants, in satisfaction of that judgment, wrongfully garnished Plaintiffs’ property and not the property of any party involved in the federal court action. Defendants moved for summary judgment. One fundamental premise of Defendants’ motion is that summary judgment is proper regardless of whether the judgment in the federal action was entered against one of the Plaintiffs. We reject this premise and conclude that the issue of whether one of the Plaintiffs is a party, or in privity with a party, to the federal action is a material issue. Not only have Defendants failed to address this issue – taking the position, instead, that it is immaterial – but the evidentiary materials presented by Plaintiffs in their response to the motion for summary judgment reveal that it is an issue in genuine dispute. Consequently, we conclude summary judgment was improperly granted, and we remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. October 17, 2025