Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 16, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,639 – George R. Brown, Jr., Petitioner/Appellee, v. Paula Rae Wagner, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Okfuskee County. Honorable Maxey P. Reilly, Trial Judge. Defendant/Appellant, Paula Rae Wagner, appeals from the trial court’s Order of Protection entered against her and in favor of Petitioner/Appellee, George R. Brown, Jr. We affirm. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, J., and GOREE, J., concur. September 10, 2026
123,866 – David R. Hull and Kellie Ann Hull, husband and wife; and Oilfield Disposal Services, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. JP Energy Marketing, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Blueknight Energy Partners, LP a Delaware Limited Partnership; and Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants/Appellees, Blueknight Energy Partners, LP; and BKEP Crude, L.L.C., Cross-Claimants, JP Energy Marketing, LLC, Cross-Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Love County, Oklahoma. Honorable Wallace Coppedge, Trial Judge. In this action for nuisance, negligence and trespass, Plaintiffs/Appellants, David R. Hull, Kellie Ann Hull and Oilfield Disposal Services, LLC, appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order denying their motion for an abatement and cleanup order related to a crude oil spill on the individual Plaintiffs’ Love County property. Plaintiffs allege the district court abused its discretion when it found an Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) regulatory standard is binding upon Plaintiffs’ private claim. Plaintiffs also assert the district court erred when it determined Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their underlying nuisance claim and therefore are not entitled to injunctive relief; when the court failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law in its decision; and when the court failed to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a decade. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, J., and GOREE, J., concur. September 10, 2026
Division II
123,073 – Ashley George, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. America’s Car Mart, Inc., d/b/a Car-Mart of Shawnee, a foreign corporation and Valerie Tanyan, an individual, Defendants/Appellants. Proceeding to Review an Order of the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. America’s Car Mart, Inc., d/b/a Car-Mart of Shawnee, and Valerie Tanyan appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to compel arbitration, allowing Ashley George’s tort claim to proceed in district court. Because the plain and unambiguous language in the arbitration clause covers the claim, we reverse the order and remand with instructions to grant Car Mart’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending the outcome of arbitration. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J.; HIXON, C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. September 9, 2026
123,528 – In the Matter of S.S.C., Alleged Deprived Child, McCrea Courtney, Appellant vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Washita County, Hon. Stephanie Jones, Trial Judge. McCrea Courtney (Mother) appeals the Order Terminating Parental Rights following a jury’s verdict terminating her parental rights to her minor child, S.S.C. Specifically, Mother proposes that the court’s pretrial decision to suspend her visitation with S.S.C. was an abuse of discretion which denied her a fair trial. Further, Mother proposes on appeal that her due process rights were violated when State added grounds for termination post-adjudication; and that the trial court’s allowance of evidence at trial regarding prior criminal history and child welfare history constituted fundamental error. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. September 15, 2026
Division III
123,518 – In the Matter of The Estate of William H. Flemimg, Deceased, The Estate of William H. Fleming, Same Person as William Hugh Fleming, Deceased, by and through Wade H. Fleming, Administrator, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Mara Dickinson, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kurt G. Glassco, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff/Appellee, the Estate of William H. Fleming (the “Estate”), in a matter concerning the ownership of real property conveyed by warranty deed to William Fleming and Defendant/Appellant Mara Dickinson (“Dickinson”). Dickinson argued that the designation of the grantees as “William Hugh Fleming And Or Mara Dickinson” created an ambiguity requiring consideration of extrinsic evidence that the grantor intended to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. On de novo review, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the deed’s language did not express an intent to create a right of survivorship and therefore conveyed the property to the grantees as tenants in common. The Court further held that the grantor’s affidavit, the circumstances surrounding the conveyance, and a corrected deed executed after William’s death could not establish a right of survivorship that was not expressed in the original deed or retroactively alter William’s vested interest in the property. Because William’s interest passed to his Estate upon his death, the Court affirmed the district court’s order. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., concur. September 11, 2026
Division IV
123,364 – Sunstar, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Mary Kay Nabours, Defendant/Appellee, and The Bryan County Abstract Company, a domestic not for profit corporation; et al., Defendants. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Bryan County, Hon. Mark Campbell, District Judge. Sunstar, LLC, appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Mary Kay Nabors. Upon review, the order granting summary judgment is affirmed because the material facts are undisputed and Sunstar cannot succeed on its theories of negligence and breach of contract against Nabors. AFFIRMED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. September 9, 2026