Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Sept. 9, 2026
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
123,902 – In the Matter of M.S. and B.M., Alleged/Adjudicated Deprived Children, Niheem Murray, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Gary L. Davis, II, Trial Judge. In this deprived child proceeding, Appellant Niheem Murray (Father), the natural father of B.M., a deprived child, appeals from the trial court’s adjudication/disposition order (Order) entered February 23, 2026, which adjudicated the child to be deprived as to Father. After notice, multiple hearings and continuances, the matter went to non-jury trial. Prior to trial, Father requested to appear at trial virtually or telephonically due to his Florida residency, indigent status and prior virtual appearances. The court denied this request because Father was disruptive and argumentative during a prior virtual appearance and the court had to terminate Father’s participation. Father’s counsel was present at trial; Father did not appear. State of Oklahoma (State) requested, and the court entered a consent adjudication against Father for his failure to appear. Father appeals asserting he was denied due process of law when he was disallowed from appearing virtually or telephonically. Father also argues the court erred when it found Father “failed to appear” for trial. After de novo review, this Court rejects Father’s claim that he was deprived of due process of law when the court denied Father’s request to appear virtually or telephonically. Father was provided with proper and ample notice of the trial, he could have appeared in person, and Father is ineligible for virtual or telephonic attendance when his prior disruptive behavior affected the decorum and solemnity of the proceeding. This Court also holds the trial court did not err when it found Father did not appear at trial. The trial court’s Order is affirmed. Opinion by BELL, J.; SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.
Division II
123,084 – Edge Legacy, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Calvin Selzer, Martha Swindel and Charlotte Taylor, Defendants/Appellants. Pauline Cathcart, or her Heirs, Successors, and Assigns, whether known or unknown, and Oscar Cathcart, or his Heirs, Successors, and Assigns, whether known or unknown, Additional Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Hon. Charles Gray, Trial Judge. Calvin Selzer, Martha Swindell, and Charlotte Taylor (collectively “Selzers”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Edge Legacy, LLC (“Edge”) in this quiet title action. The issue is whether Edge’s evidentiary materials established that its predecessor in interest obtained an interest in 1/12th of the minerals underlying a certain real property as part of a 1929 conveyance. Because Edge’s materials failed to establish this material fact, it was not entitled to summary judgment. We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by FISCHER, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and HIXON, C.J., concur. Sept. 2, 2026
123,303 — Jason Charles Kite, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. The State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Service Oklahoma, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Johnston County, Honorable Laura Corbin, Trial Judge. Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Service Oklahoma appeals an order of the trial court awarding Jason Charles Kite attorney fees and costs associated with setting aside the revocation of his drivers’ license. After review, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Kite fees and costs pursuant to 12 O.S. § 941(B). However, except for the trial court’s award of costs and expert witness fees, we vacate the final paragraph of the trial court’s June 25, 2025, order awarding attorney fees and remand to the trial court with directions to comply with the holding in Fleig v. Landmark Construction Group, 2024 OK 25, 549 P.3d 1208, in setting a fee. AFFIRMEDIN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; HIXON, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Sept. 2, 2026
123,164 – The Estate of Bobby W. White, Dorothy White, Personal Representative, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Estates of Roger Doyle Linam a/k/a Roger Linam, and Diana Sue Linam, Deceased, Virginia Estelle Duncan, Personal Representative. Proceeding to review an Order of the State of Oklahoma, Hon. Joe Trail, Trial Judge. Estelle Duncan, as personal representative for the estates of Roger Doyle Linam and Diana Sue Linam (“Linam”), appeals the district court’s May 15, 2025, Order granting specific performance in favor of Dorothy White, as personal representative of Bobby W. White’s estate (“White”). White brought suitto enforce a settlement agreement between Roger Doyle Linam (“Roger”) and Bobby W. White (“Bobby”), who died before acceptance as offeree. The heirs of Bobby sought to accept a settlement offer in Bobby’s place, which Linam refused. The district court held in favor of White, finding that an enforceable settlement agreement was reached which was to be specifically performed. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse and direct the district court to enter judgment in favor of Linam. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II by HIXON, C.J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. Sept. 2, 2026
Division III
123,667 – In the Matter of: A.S., W.A., Alleged Deprived Children, Kristy Summerfield, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Delaware County, Oklahoma. Honorable Nicholas Lelecas, Trial Judge. Appellants, Kristy Summerfield (Grandmother) and Richard Summerfield (Grandfather) (collectively Grandparents), each appeal the trial court’s November 18, 2025 Order denying their Joint Motion to Vacate Default. Specifically, Grandparents sought to vacate the trial court’s deprived adjudication for A.S. and W.A. while in their care as co-guardians. The Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated the individual cases under this appeal. We have reviewed the record and applicable law and are not persuaded by Grandparents’ arguments. We AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; PRINCE, V.C.J., and MITCHELL, J., CONCUR. Sept. 03, 2026
122,909 – Ravina Patel, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Dipika Patel, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jeff Crites, Trial Judge. Before the Court of Civil Appeals was Ravina Patel’s appeal from the district court’s denial of her petition for a permanent protective order against Dipika Patel. Appellant alleged that Defendant had threatened bodily harm to Appellant in a verbal altercation arising from an ongoing business disagreement, and two subsequent interactions relating to Defendant’s driving in the school pickup line while the parties were picking up their respective daughters; Defendant denied these allegations. The district court found the parties’ animosity toward each other arose from the ongoing business dispute, and held Appellant failed to meet the burden of proof for the entry of a permanent protective order. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court erred by (a) admitting into evidence portions of a video exhibit submitted by Defendant on relevance and undue prejudice grounds, and (b) denying the permanent protective order. The Court of Civil appeals held that admission of Defendant’s video exhibit did not constitute reversible error because the record showed the district court did not base its ruling on the video, and therefore Appellant could not show prejudice from the alleged error. The Court further held that Appellant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying the permanent order. The Court of Civil Appeals consequently AFFIRMED the district court’s denial of the permanent protective order. Opinion by MITCHELL, J.; DOWNING, P.J., and PRINCE, V.C.J., CONCUR.
Division IV
123,515 – Rhiannon Bruner, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Town of Valley Brook, a municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Proceeding to review an Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Don Andrews, District Judge. Rhiannon Bruner appeals the court’s grant of the town of Valley Brook’s motion to dismiss her case with prejudice. Upon review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings, finding that Ms. Bruner’s amended petition states a claim for relief. She may, therefore, proceed with her tort claim against Valley Brook. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV by BLACKWELL, P.J.; BARNES, J., and HUBER, J., concur. Sept. 2, 2026
122,774 – Carol Giddens, individually; Sammy Giddens, individually; and Estell Excavating, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Peggy Katesand McAtee and Woods, P.C., Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Natalie Mai, Trial Judge. Appellants, Carol Giddens, Sammy Giddens, and Estell Excavating, Inc., appeal two district court orders: (1) a journal entry granting summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee Peggy Kates (Kates) on Plaintiffs’ claims for conversion, fiduciary misconduct, and unjust enrichment; and (2) a journal entry finding Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, granting the motion to dismiss of defendant/appellee McAtee and Woods, P.C. (the Firm). Upon review, we find the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Kates and against Plaintiffs or in dismissing the malpractice claim against the Firm. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and BARNES, J., concur. Sept. 3, 2026