Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals | August 31, 2022
Decisions
IN RE CITY OF EUFAULA INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 3
2022 OK CIV APP 29
Case Number: 119419
Decided: 07/21/2022
Mandate Issued: 08/17/2022
¶1 Martha Sellers appeals a decision of the district court interpreting a municipal election statute, 11 O.S. 2011, § 18-101. The court found that § 18-101 requires that only the pre-circulation copy of an initiative petition need be filed 120 days before the candidate filing date for the next municipal general election, and that the circulated and signed petition may be filed up to 90 days after that date. Based on this reading, the petition was timely filed. On review, we agree and affirm.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DAVIS
2022 OK CIV APP 30
Case Number: 119824
Decided: 07/22/2022
Mandate Issued: 08/17/2022
¶1 In this probate proceeding, Petitioner/Appellant, Virgil Keith McDonald (Contestant), appeals from the probate court’s order sustaining the motion for summary judgment filed by Andrea Lynette Davis, Personal Representative of the Estate of Kyle L. Davis, Deceased. Contestant filed a petition to vacate the court’s order admitting decedent’s 2019 last will and testament to probate. The Personal Representative moved for summary judgment. The probate court granted summary judgment to the Personal Representative holding Contestant failed to file a petition objecting to the 2019 will within the statutory time limit of three (3) months after the 2019 will was admitted to probate; therefore, pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §67, the probate court lacks the jurisdiction to grant relief. We find there are no facts in dispute and the probate court properly determined the Personal Representative is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The probate court’s judgment is affirmed.
IN THE MATTER OF W.P.
2022 OK CIV APP 31
Case Number: 120074
Decided: 07/21/2022
Mandate Issued: 08/17/2022
¶1 Appellant, Billy Zane Deo (Father) appeals a final order terminating parental rights to minor child, W.P., based on the length of time W.P. was placed in foster care, pursuant to 10A O.S.2015 Supp., § 1-4-904(B)(17).1 Father has never had custody of W.P. and was incarcerated at the time of his birth and through trial. Father is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Nation), and the Oklahoma and Indian Child Welfare Acts (ICWA) apply. Father contends that evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the Department of Human Services (DHS) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of an Indian family, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that continued custody with Father was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. On review of the record and the briefs on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order of November 24, 2021 terminating Father’s parental rights.
MCINTYRE v. STATE ex rel. OK. DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
2022 OK CIV APP 32
Case Number: 120085
Decided: 07/22/2022
Mandate Issued: 08/17/2022
¶1 Plaintiff Robert McIntyre, M.D., appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (DMHSAS) on its counterclaim for recovery of Dr. McIntyre’s relocation expenses, as well as from the dismissal of Dr. McIntyre’s claims against DMHSAS. Based on our review, we affirm.