Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2024
Decisions
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRISBY
2024 OK 83
Case Number:
Decided: 12/16/2024
¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Matthew Frisby, OBA No. 19096, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent requests that he be allowed to relinquish his license to practice law and to resign his bar membership pending disciplinary proceedings, as detailed in his affidavit prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. As provided in Rule 8.2, RGDP, the Court “may enter an order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings” upon the filing of Respondent’s affidavit in this Court.
IN THE MATTER OF J.O.
2024 OK 82
Case Number: 121610
Decided: 12/10/2024
OPINION
The State of Oklahoma moved to terminate Father’s (Parker) parental rights. The motion was granted by the trial court. COCA reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. Both Parker and the State petitioned for certiorari review, and both petitions were granted. We find that (1) Parker’s due process rights were violated; and (2) the State must comply with ICWA requirements in the parental termination proceedings. The Opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. EZELL
2024 OK 81
Case Number: SCBD-7788
Decided: 12/09/2024
¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Julia Marie Ezell, OBA No. 21168, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent requests that she be allowed to relinquish her license to practice law and to resign her bar membership pending disciplinary proceedings, as detailed in her affidavit prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. As provided in Rule 8.2, RGDP, the Court “may enter an order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings” upon the filing of Respondent’s affidavit in this Court.
RE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
2024 OK 80
Decided: 12/09/2024
O R D E R
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the certificate of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporter named below be reinstated as she has complied with the requirements of 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 2, Rule 10.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 2, Rule 10, the certificate of the following shorthand reporter is reinstated from the revocation earlier imposed by this Court:
Name | CSR # | Effective Date of Reinstatement |
Shea Aleman | 2034 | December 9, 2024 |
IN RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 15 FOR DISTRICT COURTS OF OKLAHOMA
2024 OK 79
Decided: 11/18/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Court hereby amends Rule 15, Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S., ch. 2, app., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.
¶2 The amended rule shall be effective immediately.
¶3 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
All Justices Concur.
EXHIBIT A
Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma
Rule 15. Disqualification of Judges in Civil and Criminal Cases
a. Before filing any motion to disqualify a judge, an in camera request shall first be made to the judge to disqualify or to transfer the cause to another judge. If such request is not satisfactorily resolved, not less than ten (10) days before the case is set for trial a motion to disqualify a judge or to transfer a cause to another judge may be filed and a copy delivered to the judge.
b. Any interested party who deems himself aggrieved by the refusal of a judge to grant a motion to disqualify or transfer a cause to another judge may re-present his motion to the Chief Judge of the county in which the cause is pending or, if the disqualification of a Chief Judge is sought, to the Presiding Judge of the administrative district by filing in the case within five (5) days from the date of said refusal a written request for re-hearing. A copy of the request shall be mailed or delivered to the Chief Judge or Presiding Judge, to the adverse party and to the judge who entered the original order. If the hearing before the second judge results in an order adverse to the movant, he shall be granted not more than five (5) days to institute a proceeding in the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Criminal Appeals will entertain an original proceeding to disqualify a judge or to direct a judge to transfer a cause to another judge unless it is shown that the relief sought was previously denied by the judge to whom the matter was re-presented in accordance with this rule. An order favorable to the moving party may not be reviewed by appeal or other method.
c. An original proceeding in mandamus to disqualify a judge in a civil action or proceeding shall be brought in the Supreme Court; an original proceeding in mandamus to disqualify a judge in a criminal case or proceeding shall be brought in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If mandamus is not brought in the appellate court designated as proper by this rule, the case will be transferred to the proper court either on motion or sua sponte. Art. VII, § 4 Okla. Const.
d. When an interested party has filed a formal motion for a judge to disqualify or recuse, the judge cannot proceed with the case until the disqualification stands overruled of record following a party’s compliance with this rule. Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal, 2007 OK 58, 163 P.3d 548. “Overruled of record” occurs when the interested party’s request to disqualify or recuse has been denied by the judge, the Chief or Presiding Judge, and the appellate court or the time for the interested party to complete Rule 15(a)-(c) has expired. Nothing in this rule shall prevent another judge from proceeding forward with the case, pending resolution of the requested disqualification or recusal of the subject judge.
e. No judge who is either recused or disqualified shall participate in the selection of the successor judge to the case. Rules on Administration of Courts, Rule 9, 20 O.S., ch. 1, app. 2.
f. In a civil proceeding, sanctions for the filing of a frivolous motion to disqualify a judge or recuse may be invoked against the party filing such motion in favor of the party required to defend against it (including a real party in interest). A frivolous motion may include one brought for the sole purpose of delay or to disrupt the proceeding or a motion so obviously without any merit as to impute bad faith on the party seeking disqualification or recusal. Where the filing of a motion is in good faith, sanctions will not be imposed. 12 O.S., § 2011.
EXHIBIT B
Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma
Rule 15. Disqualification of Judges in Civil and Criminal Cases
a. Before filing any motion to disqualify a judge, an in camera request shall first be made to the judge to disqualify or to transfer the cause to another judge. If such request is not satisfactorily resolved, not less than ten (10) days before the case is set for trial a motion to disqualify a judge or to transfer a cause to another judge may be filed and a copy delivered to the judge.
b. Any interested party who deems himself aggrieved by the refusal of a judge to grant a motion to disqualify or transfer a cause to another judge may re-present his motion to the Chief Judge of the county in which the cause is pending or, if the disqualification of a Chief Judge is sought, to the Presiding Judge of the administrative district by filing in the case within five (5) days from the date of said refusal a written request for re-hearing. A copy of the request shall be mailed or delivered to the Chief Judge or Presiding Judge, to the adverse party and to the judge who entered the original order. If the hearing before the second judge results in an order adverse to the movant, he shall be granted not more than five (5) days to institute a proceeding in the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Criminal Appeals will entertain an original proceeding to disqualify a judge or to direct a judge to transfer a cause to another judge unless it is shown that the relief sought was previously denied by the judge to whom the matter was re-presented in accordance with this rule. An order favorable to the moving party may not be reviewed by appeal or other method.
c. An original proceeding in mandamus to disqualify a judge in a civil action or proceeding shall be brought in the Supreme Court; an original proceeding in mandamus to disqualify a judge in a criminal case or proceeding shall be brought in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If mandamus is not brought in the appellate court designated as proper by this rule, the case will be transferred to the proper court either on motion or sua sponte. Art. VII, § 4 Okla. Const.
d. When an interested party has filed a formal motion for a judge to disqualify or recuse, the judge cannot proceed with the case until the disqualification stands overruled of record following a party’s compliance with this rule. Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal, 2007 OK 58, 163 P.3d 548. “Overruled of record” occurs when the interested party’s request to disqualify or recuse has been denied by the judge, the Chief or Presiding Judge, and the appellate court or the time for the interested party to complete Rule 15(a)-(c) has expired. Nothing in this rule shall prevent another judge from proceeding forward with the case, pending resolution of the requested disqualification or recusal of the subject judge.
e. No judge who is either recused or disqualified shall participate in the selection of the successor judge to the case. Rules on Administration of Courts, Rule 9, 20 O.S., ch. 1, app. 2.
f. In a civil proceeding, sanctions for the filing of a frivolous motion to disqualify a judge or recuse may be invoked against the party filing such motion in favor of the party required to defend against it (including a real party in interest). A frivolous motion may include one brought for the sole purpose of delay or to disrupt the proceeding or a motion so obviously without any merit as to impute bad faith on the party seeking disqualification or recusal. Where the filing of a motion is in good faith, sanctions will not be imposed. 12 O.S., § 2011.
MARSHALL v. CITY OF TULSA
2024 OK 78
Case Number: 122429
Decided: 11/06/2024
¶0 Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa, placed a pit bull mix with Loren Poss. Poss went on vacation and left dog with pet-sitter, Sarah Marshall. Dog bit Marshall when she attempted to separate a dog fight. Marshall sued City of Tulsa pursuant to the strict liability dog bite statute, 4 O.S. § 42.1 and common law negligence. The trial court granted City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Marshall was an “owner” of dog and could not recover under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and City did not owe a duty to Marshall. Marshall appealed, and we retained the matter. We hold that Marshall is an “owner” under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and City did not owe Marshall a duty of care.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION
2024 OK 77
Case Number: 120707
Decided: 11/06/2024
As Corrected: November 7, 2024
¶0 Corporation Commission issued an order preventing certain utilities from billing customers for certain municipal franchise fees and municipal gross receipts taxes by application of the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. The City of Oklahoma City appealed. The appeal was retained sua sponte by the Court for appellate review. The Corporation Commission filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was previously denied by the Court. We hold: The Oklahoma Municipal League possesses standing in the controversy; and the Commission’s determination that the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act changed, amended, or altered a utility’s legal obligations concerning municipal franchise fees and gross receipts taxes is a determination not sustained by law and must be reversed.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WADE
2024 OK 76
Case Number: SCBD-7778
Decided: 10/28/2024
¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Charles Edward Wade, Jr., OBA No. 9256, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent requests that he be allowed to relinquish his license to practice law and to resign his bar membership pending disciplinary proceedings, as detailed in his affidavit prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. As provided in Rule 8.2, RGDP, the Court “may enter an order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings” upon the filing of Respondent’s affidavit in this Court.
…
¶3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the resignation of Charles Edward Wade, Jr. tendered during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings be approved and that his resignation is deemed effective upon the filing of this Order in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
¶4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and–because an attorney’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is tantamount to disbarment–he may not apply for reinstatement of his license to practice law (and of his membership in the Bar) before the lapse of five (5) years from the date of this Order.
¶5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with all aspects of Rule 9.1, RGDP.
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that repayment of any sums expended from the Client Security Fund for monies paid to former clients of Respondent shall be a condition satisfied prior to any future reinstatement.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. COATNEY
2024 OK 75
Case Number: 7741
Decided: 10/21/2024
Synopsis Background: The Respondent, after a guilty plea, was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charge involved conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud related to misuse of insider information regarding Continental Resources, Inc., whereby Respondent and co-conspirators obtained mineral rights leases/purchases with the intention to re-sell or re-lease the same to Continental Resources, Inc. for profit. Respondent pled guilty and the court sentenced him to supervised release for a term of two (2) years. Respondent filed an affidavit of resignation and offered to surrender his license to practice law and to resign from the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) pursuant to Rule 8.1, RGDP. Complainant filed an application and agreed with Respondent’s proposed resignation.
Holding: Supreme Court held that the resignation of Respondent tendered during the pendency of his disciplinary proceedings would be approved and Respondent’s name to remain stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
WATSON v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
2024 OK 74
Case Number: 119256
Decided: 10/15/2024
¶0 This is a wrongful death and personal injury action arising from the fatal collision between a pickup truck driven by Paul Watson and a train owned and operated by BNSF Railway Company. A jury found BNSF was not liable for the collision and the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, found prejudicial error in the instructions given to the jury and remanded the case for a new trial. This Court previously granted certiorari. We find the error, if any, in the instructions was not so prejudicial as to mislead the jury to reach a result it otherwise would not have.
CERTIORARI GRANTED PREVIOUSLY; THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED; THE TRIAL COURT’S
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AND THE JURY VERDICT SHALL BE
REINSTATED. THE MATTER IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.
IN RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
2024 OK 73
Case Number: SCBD-7740
Decided: 10/14/2024
ORDER
This matter comes on before this Court upon an Amended Application to Amend Rule 2(c) and Rule 6(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (hereafter “Rules”), 5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 1-B as proposed and set out in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and Rules2(c) and 6(e) are hereby amended as set out in Exhibit A attached hereto, effective January 1, 2025.
…
“Exhibit A”
THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
FOR
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
RULE 2(c). SCOPE AND EXEMPTIONS
Judges who, during the entire reporting period, are by Constitution, law or regulation prohibited from the private practice of law, members of the United States Congress, members of the Oklahoma Legislature, the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, members of the armed forces on full-time active duty, and members of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, members of the Professional Responsibility Commission, members of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, and The Oklahoma Bar Journal Board of Editors during their year(s) of service, shall be exempt from the educational requirements of these rules.
RULE 6(e)
A suspended member who does not file an application for reinstatement within one (1) year from the date the member is suspended by the Supreme Court for noncompliance with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, shall cease automatically to be a member of the Association, and the Board of Governors shall file an application with the Supreme Court recommending the member be stricken from the membership rolls. Subsequent to the Order of the Court, if the attorney desires to become a member of the Association within two years, the attorney shall be required to file with the Professional Responsibility Commission an affidavit by the attorney and a certificate from the MCLEC indicating compliance with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year suspended for noncompliance with MCLE, including payment of all fees and charges, and the attorney must comply with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the Oklahoma Bar Association, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. If the attorney desires to become a member of the Association after two years and a day, the attorney shall be required to file with the Professional Responsibility Commission an affidavit by the attorney and a certificate from the MCLEC indicating completion of two years required credit, including payment of all fees and charges, and the attorney must comply with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the Oklahoma Bar Association, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER
2024 OK 72
Case Number: SCBD-7680
Decided: 10/08/2024
¶0 The Respondent, after a guilty plea, was convicted of violating 18 U.S. C. § 371 (conspiracy). The charge involved conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud related to his misuse of insider information of his client Continental Resources, Inc. He is currently serving a 60-month sentence. The Complainant filed the required Notice of Criminal Conviction with this Court and we ordered the interim suspension of the Respondent’s license to practice law. The Respondent, although notified of these disciplinary proceedings, has not requested a hearing or otherwise responded to these proceedings. The Complainant requested the Respondent be disbarred. We hold the appropriate discipline is disbarment.
RESPONDENT DISBARRED FROM THE DATE OF HIS INTERIM
SUSPENSION; HIS NAME SHALL REMAIN STRICKEN FROM THE
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS; NO COSTS ASSESSED
IN RE AMENDMENT TO RULE 5 OF RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO PRACTICE OF LAW
2024 OK 71
Case Number: SCBD-7743
Decided: 10/07/2024
This matter comes on before this Court upon an Application to Amend Rule Five of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, app 5. This Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and the Rules are hereby amended as set out in Exhibit A attached hereto.
…
EXHIBIT A
RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION
TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Adopted and Promulgated by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Revised Form on the 7th day of February 2023.
RULE FIVE
EXAMINATION
In effect on July 1, 2024;
All applicants for admission by examination who score at least a 260 on the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE), either in Oklahoma or by transfer of the score from a UBE administered in another UBE jurisdiction authorized by the NCBE and are otherwise qualified under these rules shall be recommended by the Board of Bar Examiners to the practice of law in this state. Prior to July 1, 2024, all applicants for admission by examination who scored at least a 264 on the UBE, either in Oklahoma or by transfer of the score from a UBE administered in another UBE jurisdiction authorized by the NCBE and who are otherwise qualified under these rules shall be recommended by the Board of Bar Examiners for admission to the practice of law in this state.
There shall be held two bar examinations each year, at dates, times, places and duration to be prescribed by the Board of Bar Examiners.
ROYAL HOT SHOT INVESTMENTS v. KIEFER PRODUCTION CO.
2024 OK 70
Case Number: 120815
Decided: 10/08/2024
¶0 A non-party appeals adverse discovery orders stemming from the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable order. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that the discovery orders relating to the subpoena duces tecum are appealable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the non-party to produce the documents responsive to the subpoena.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. COLLINS
2024 OK 69
Case Number: SCBD-7608; Cons. w/7623
Decided: 10/08/2024
¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association commenced disciplinary proceedings against Respondent pursuant to Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, for committing professional misconduct in other jurisdictions, failing to report to the Oklahoma Bar Association the disciplinary actions in other jurisdictions, failing to cooperate in the Oklahoma Bar Association’s investigation into an admonishment filed against Respondent in another court, and failing to participate in these disciplinary proceedings. The Trial Panel recommended that this Court disbar Respondent from the practice of law. We hold that Respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment. We further order Respondent to pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings.
Tracy Pierce Nester, Assistant General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.
Michael David Collins, pro se.
RESPONDENT IS DISBARRED AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS.
IN RE AMENDMENT TO RULES CREATING AND CONTROLLING OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2024 OK 68
Case Number: SCBD-7739
Decided: 09/30/2024
This matter comes on befire this Court upon Application by the Oklahoma Bar Association House of Delegates for approval of amendments to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association by increasing the amount of annual dues.
The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter and the amendment to Article VIII, Section 1 of the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Application is granted to the extent set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, effective January 1, 2025.
…
EXHIBIT A
RULES CREATING AND CONTROLLING THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
ARTICLE VIII
Section 1. ANNUAL DUES. The annual dues for each member of the Association shall be based upon the financial requirements of the Association including maintenance of an adequate reserve fund for contingencies and emergencies.
Until otherwise provided the annual dues for each active member shall be $350 per year; except that dues for active members who have been admitted to practice in any State less than three (3) years, as of the first day of January of the dues paying year, shall be $150 for each such year. All dues shall be due and payable, on or before January 2 of each year, to the Executive Director of the Association. Persons admitted to the Bar of this State after January 2 of any year shall not be liable for dues until January 2 of the following year. Nothing in these rules shall prevent the establishment of Sections with the approval of the Board of Governors, nor the charging of voluntary dues to members of any such Section.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CAMPBELL
2024 OK 67
Case Number: SCBD-7403
Decided: 09/30/2024
¶1 Respondent, who has pending disciplinary proceedings, has submitted an affidavit pursuant to Rule 8, Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedure (RGDP), 5 O.S. ch. 1 app. 1-A, seeking to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her right to practice law. Complainant OBA has filed an application for an order approving resignation pending disciplinary proceedings.
…
¶8 The effective date of Respondent’s resignation is August 29, 2024.
¶9 This Court finds Respondent’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings complies with all the requirements set forth in Rule 8.1, RGDP, and accepts the resignation.
¶10 Respondent’s OBA number is 20467, and her official roster address, in OBA records, is P.O. Box 571, Wellston, OK 74881.
IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R.
2024 OK 66
Case Number: 120844
Decided: 09/24/2024
¶0 Respondent/Appellant, Brandi McCubbin (hereinafter “Adoptive Mother”), appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights for failure to protect V.J.R., also known as F.V.M. (hereinafter “Child”), from shocking and heinous abuse pursuant to 10A O.S.2021, § 1-4-904(B)(9). This Court retained the appeals in this case and a companion case–i.e., Victoria Rodriguez v. State of Oklahoma (In re M.R.), No. 120,910 (Okla. filed Dec. 7, 2022)–to address an issue of first impression concerning whether the trial court should have applied ICWA’s heightened burden of proof in a case that does not involve a Native American child or family. In Rodriguez v. State (In re M.R.), 2024 OK 28, ¶¶ 0, 16–23, 548 P.3d 120, 123, 128–31, we held that, in such a case, the parent lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of ICWA and that, even if we were to presume standing existed, the equal protection claim must fail because ICWA’s heightened burden is based on a preference that is political (i.e., tribal membership) rather than racial. Thus, all that remains in this appeal is to dispose of Adoptive Mother’s remaining arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence against her and the admission of a DVD recording of Child’s forensic interview into evidence. Upon review of those issues, we find that the trial court’s order terminating parental rights should be affirmed.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVANS
2024 OK 65
Case Number: 120854
Decided: 09/17/2024
¶0 Melissa Evans was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident with a car being driven by Darrell D. Blaylock. Both Evans and a passenger in Blaylock’s automobile, George D. Blaylock, were killed in the crash. Evan’s son, Joshua Evans, initiated a probate proceeding and was named personal representative of his mother’s estate. Later, Joshua Evans filed a motion seeking a court order declaring that Melissa Evan’s house qualified for the homestead exemption. The probate court denied this request and Joshua Evans commenced an interlocutory appeal. We retained the case and now hold that the subject real property does not qualify for either a constitutional or probate homestead exemption.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH
2024 OK 64
Case Number: SCBD-7429
Decided: 09/17/2024
¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, David Leo Smith, with one count of professional misconduct. The Trial Panel recommended Respondent be publicly censured for his violations, or in the alternative if the Court deems a term of suspension is appropriate, that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law not to exceed ninety (90) days. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of Respondent’s conduct warrants a suspension from the practice of law for thirty (30) days. Complainant’s application to assess costs is denied.
SPENCER v. NELSON
2024 OK 63
Case Number: 120210
Decided: 09/17/2024
¶0 Administrator sought certiorari review from the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s order sustaining Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Administrator brought a wrongful death action against the defendants for damages arising from physician’s alleged negligent and grossly negligent treatment of Decedent by failing to make a surgical repair which allegedly was the proximate cause of Decedent’s sepsis and death. Administrator urged that the Court of Civil Appeals erred by deciding questions of substance in a way that was not in accord with applicable decisions of this Court. We agree and hold: (1) for claims arising under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), the discovery rule applies to wrongful death actions arising from medical negligence; and (2) a governmental employee has no immunity under the GTCA for claims arising from gross negligence, acts outside the scope of employment, and the GTCA notice requirements do not apply to such tort claims. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JOHNSON
2024 OK 62
Case Number: SCBD-7583
Decided: 09/10/2024
¶0 The Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the Respondent, David Earl Johnson, with seven counts of professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of the Respondent’s conduct warrants a suspension of his law license for a period of two years and one day. The Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and one day year from the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JORDAN
2024 OK 61
Case Number: SCBD-7504
Decided: 09/10/2024
¶1 Courtney Rae Jordan, Respondent, was arrested, charged, and pled guilty to willfully attempting to elude a police officer while driving a motor vehicle after receiving a red light and siren from a peace officer in an official vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 13; and 12 O.S. § 540A(a) and (b) – Eluding Police Officers in Indian Country.1 On May 18, 2023, Respondent was sentenced to a probation term of one year.2 The Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar) instituted this Rule 7 proceeding on June 13, 2023. We entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension on June 19, 2023. Following a hearing before the Trial Panel, both the Bar and the Trial Panel recommended that Respondent be suspended for a period equal to her probation term which expired May 18, 2024. The record before us supports this recommended discipline.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 The Bar initiated proceedings pursuant to Rule 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A,3 by filing with this Court a Notice of Judgment and Sentence and attached certified copies of the Indictment, Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and Order Entering Plea, Plea Agreement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (c)1(C), Judgment in a Criminal Case, Probation sentenced to a term of One Year, Standard Conditions of Probation, Special Conditions of Probation, Criminal Monetary Penalties, Schedule of Payments. This Rule 7 matter is before the Court for the imposition of final discipline. Respondent has been under an order of interim suspension since June 19, 2023, for more than a year.4 A hearing was conducted on April 1, 2024; the Trial Panel Report was issued May 9, 2024.
¶3 On July 12, 2022, the police received multiple calls regarding Respondent that included a larceny from one home, erratic driving through a business warehouse in an industrial park, striking one pedestrian, with a continued police pursuit through a busy Wal-Mart parking lot and ultimately a high-speed chase involving 15 police officers. The police were in their official vehicles using the red sirens and lights to direct Respondent to stop. Respondent did not voluntarily stop. This pursuit ended when multiple officers used their vehicles to block Respondent and cause her to crash into their vehicles which terminated the chase. Respondent was taken into police custody and transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. She was treated and released. It is undisputed there was no evidence of any substance use by Respondent associated with this event. After medical clearance, she was transported to the local jail where she was booked and remained for two days. She was taken to a local hospital and examined, treated and released. The lab tests conducted did not reveal any alcohol or illicit drugs in her system. There were seven different collision case numbers associated with these events. There were also numerous individuals injured and there was associated property damage.
¶4 The federal Grand Jury issued three charges.5 Count One charged Jordan, an Indian driver of a motor vehicle with willfully attempting to elude a police officer and endangering another person after receiving a red light and siren from the officer’s vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 13; and 21 O.S. § 540A (a) and (b); Count Two charged Jordan with willfully and maliciously failing to stop her vehicle after causing an accident and failing to show her license, security verification and to render reasonable assistance to any person injured, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 13; and 47 O.S. §10-102; and Count Three charged Jordan with carrying away, with intent to steal, personal property of a non-Indian, by stealing a vehicle component and the property taken was less than $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S., §§ 1151, 1152, and 661.
¶5 Respondent entered a plea of guilty to only Count One in the federal indictment. The remaining charges were dismissed. In Respondent’s written Plea of Guilty to Count One of the Indictment, she admitted to “knowingly, willfully and intentionally committing or causing to be committed the acts constituting the crime alleged in Count One” and she submitted the following sworn statement:
I, Courtney Rae Jordan, admit that on July 12, 2022, I was operating a motor vehicle in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Police Officers with the Broken Arrow Police Department attempted to stop the vehicle I was driving by signaling me with emergency lights and sirens. I attempted to elude these police officers by increasing the speed of the vehicle and driving in a reckless manner. While I attempted to elude the officers, multiple people were endangered, including other drivers, pedestrians, and the police officers. This occurred on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation, and I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation.6
Respondent was sentenced to a probation term of one year; the judgment was imposed on Mary 18, 2023.7 Respondent was ordered to pay the following criminal monetary penalties: Assessment- $100, Restitution – $22.56, and a Fine – $1,000.00.
¶6 Several days before Respondent’s erratic behavior, she had an unexplained loss of consciousness where she fell at home and was found unconscious and bleeding from the head. Respondent was also experiencing unusual smells and tastes, she was unable to think and process for her work as a government attorney, and even failed to show up for work. Later she was diagnosed with a medical condition, temporal lobe epilepsy.The record reflects this condition is now controlled with medication management. The Trial Panel noted that neither the Respondent nor the Bar put on expert testimony that would explain Respondent’s conduct on July 12. The Panel relied on medical reports submitted by Respondent from two medical providers, but they concluded there was not a strong nexus connecting Respondent’s behavior to a clear medical issue. We disagree. The medical reports from Respondent’s treating neurologist provide a strong nexus as discussed below.
…
ANALYSIS
¶10 This Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction to carry out its nondelegable responsibility to discipline lawyers and to regulate the practice of law to safeguard the interests of the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Shofner, 2002 OK 84, ¶ 5, 60 P.3d 1024, 1027. We exercise de novo review with respect to every aspect of a disciplinary inquiry. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Cooley, 2013 OK 42, ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 453, 454. The professional discipline imposed is based upon the respondent’s conduct, any prior history of respondent’s professional misconduct, and the discipline imposed upon other lawyers for similar acts of misconduct. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Wright, 2023 OK 1, ¶ 13, 523 P.3d 1106, 1109, citing State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Smith, 2016 OK 19, ¶ 36, 368 P.3d 810, 818.
¶11 The facts of this disciplinary matter are undisputed. Although Respondent does not have a clear memory of the events of July 12, she has watched the video tapes and does not deny her actions and her plea agreement reflects her admission. The Bar agrees that Respondent suffered some physical and/or mental incident causing the events of July 12 which endangered the lives of citizens. All parties agree that following Respondent’s arrest, she was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and a head injury which, in the opinion of her neurologist, “led to her accident and paranoid behavior.”12 The Trial Panel and both parties also agreed that the evidence reflects that Respondent’s health conditions are currently managed, and she has no impairment that would affect her fulfilling her professional duties as an attorney. These conclusions are supported by the evidence.
¶12 The Trial Panel, and both parties agree that Respondent’s criminal plea constituted a violation of Rule 8.4 (b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORCP) and further that her actions are grounds for discipline under Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Both parties agree with the Trial Panel’s recommendation that Respondent be suspended for a period equal to her probation term which expired May 18, 2024, and that Respondent be directed to pay the costs associated with this proceeding within the time specified by this Court. The evidence before us supports this disciplinary recommendation.
¶13 Although the Trial Panel’s recommendations are advisory, they are accorded great weight. OBA v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, ¶ 5, 770 P.2d 892, 894. The goal of lawyer disciplinary matters is not to punish the lawyer, but rather to “safeguard the interest of the public, the courts and the legal profession.” OBA v. Albert, 2007 OK 31, ¶ 11, 163 P.3d 527, 532-533; OBA v. Burns, 2006 OK 75, ¶ 25, 145 P.3d 1088, 1094. We also inquire into the continued fitness of the lawyer to practice law, and in addition the instillation of confidence in the profession by the public. Burns, Id. Respondent reasoned that the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has done everything necessary to insure each of these interests are protected and for reinstatement of her license to practice law. We agree.
¶14 A lawyer may be disciplined for “professional misconduct” as defined in the Rules of Professional Conduct.13 It is considered “misconduct” when a lawyer commits “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”14 Although Respondent pled guilty, we also consider as mitigating evidence that the federal court imposed a misdemeanor sentence of 1 year probation, $1,000 fine, and restitution of $25.06.
¶15 The Bar noted that Respondent’s crime, conviction, and sentence were widely reported by local, state, and national media outlets by print, television, and internet stories. Respondent was identified as an Oklahoma attorney employed with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office. The Bar described her actions as reckless, dangerous, and harmed the image of the profession. Respondent admitted to driving in a reckless manner, and that her actions were willful and intentional. The Trial Panel, and all parties agree on the term of Respondent’s discipline. We are faced with a lawyer with an excellent professional record prior to this July 12 event. The evidence demonstrates that these events were precipitated by an undiagnosed seizure condition. This condition was not diagnosed or treated until after Respondent’s arrest and is now under control and managed. The evidence supports the recommended discipline and furthers this Court’s aim in protecting the public and promotes confidence in the public.
¶16 The Bar filed an Application to Assess Costs, seeking the following: Certified mail – $19.13, Certified Court Records – $60.00, Court Reporter Expenses – $142.45, Witness Fee – $10.00, Professional Responsibility Tribunal Expense – $128.64, for total request of $1,642.22. The Bar’s request for costs is granted in the amount of One Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Two and Twenty-Two Cents ($1,642.22). The Respondent shall pay all costs within ninety days from the date this Opinion is adopted. We hereby order that Respondent’s discipline is for one year to be concurrent with Respondent’s one-year probation term which expired May 18, 2024, and with credit for time served under the interim suspension. Respondent’s Interim Suspension is lifted, and Respondent is ordered to pay costs as directed.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR
WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED UNDER THE
INTERIM SUSPENSION; INTERIM SUSPENSION
LIFTED; COSTS IMPOSED.
IN RE: STATE QUESTION NO. 832 INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 446
2024 OK 60
Decided: 08/15/2024
¶1 Proponents of State Question 832, Initiative Petition 446 have circulated their petition and collected signatures to place State Question 832 on the ballot. The state question would amend the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act to increase the state minimum wage, beginning in 2025 with $9.00 per hour and increasing $1.50 every year until the minimum wage was $15.00 in 2029. Thereafter, the minimum wage would increase based upon the increase in cost of living, if any, as measured by the U.S. Department of Labor. Proponents timely filed their pamphlets with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on July 15, 2024. See 34 O.S.2021 § 3.
¶2 The Oklahoma Secretary of State, Josh Cockroft, has certified to this Court that the proponents for State Question No. 832, Initiative Petition No. 446 turned in 157,287 physical signatures that were in substantial compliance with 34 O.S.2021 §§ 3, 4 and 6.1. 34 O.S.2021 § 8(H)(1). The Secretary of State also certified that 1,153,284 votes were cast for the office of Governor in the last general election, November 2022. Id. § 8(H)(2). Proponents to amend a state statute by initiative petition must collect a total amount of signatures equaling 8% of the total number of votes cast for the state office receiving the highest number of votes cast in the last general election. Okla. Const. art. V, § 2; 34 O.S. § 8(H)(2). According to the Oklahoma State Election Board, 8% of the November 2022 election for Governor totaled 92,263. The number of physical signatures counted and certified to this Court by the Secretary of State appears numerically sufficient. 34 O.S. § 8(H).
¶3 Any citizen may file an objection to the ballot title or the validity or number of signatures within ten (10) days after the Secretary of State publishes notice in a newspaper of general circulation. 34 O.S.2021 § 8(I). When the proponents filed their Initiative Petition on October 27, 2023, the operative statute required that such objection “must be filed within ten (10) business days after publication and must relate only to the validity or number of the signatures or a challenge to the ballot title.” Id. (emphasis added). The applicable deadline is unaffected by amendments to § 8(I) which became effective after the proponents filed this proceeding.
¶4 The Secretary of State is directed to publish, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in this State, a notice of the filing of the signed petitions and the signed petitions’ apparent sufficiency. Id. The Secretary of State shall also include in the notice the text of the ballot title as rewritten by the Attorney General and a notice to any citizen that he or she may file an objection to the signature count or rewritten ballot title by filing the written objection with the Supreme Court with copies sent to the proponents of State Question 832, Initiative Petition 446. Id. The Secretary of State must further advise all citizens in the published notice that any objection to the signature count or rewritten ballot title must be filed within ten (10) business days after publication, the objection can only relate to the validity of the signatures or the rewritten ballot title, and copies of the objection must be filed with the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. Id.
¶5 The Secretary of State shall obtain verified proof of publication of the required notice and shall file with dispatch that verified proof of publication with the Clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court as a return to this order.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRYAR
2024 OK 59
Decided: 07/31/2024
¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Plea of Guilty, and Judgment and Sentence from the following matter in Cleveland County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Andrea Beth Bennett, case no. CF-2022-0040. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Respondent pled guilty to the charge of felony Child Endangerment by Driving Under the Influence, the charge of misdemeanor Driving a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol, the charge of misdemeanor Transporting Open Container of Alcoholic Beverage, and the charge of misdemeanor Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage. The court sentenced Fryar to a four-year suspended sentence on the felony conviction, a one-year suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a six-month suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of transporting open container of alcoholic beverage, and a one-year suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of leaving the scene of an accident involving damage, with all terms of imprisonment to run concurrent with each other.
IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 5 GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 58
Decided: 07/26/2024
¶1 Rule 5 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Okla. Stat. tit. 20, ch. 20, app. 2, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The remainder of Rule 5 is unaffected by the Amendment. The Amended Rule will be effective immediately upon the date of issuance of the Order.
¶2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 26th day of July, 2024.
TULSA AMBULATORY PROCEDURE CENTER v. OLMSTEAD
2024 OK 57
Case Number: 119791
Decided: 06/25/2024
¶0 Medical providers sued a former employee for breach of an employment agreement. Employee filed counterclaims alleging he was owed unpaid wages and bonuses. Providers filed an answer to the counterclaims, raising “failure to state a claim” as the sole affirmative defense. After nearly four-years of litigation, providers attempted to raise, for the first time, that the contract was illegal and therefore void as a matter of law. The lower court issued an order finding providers had waived the affirmative defense, thus precluding its use as shield from liability. Following a trial on the merits, the trial judge determined providers had breached the employment agreement and issued a money judgment of $387,618.36 in favor of employee. Providers appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that refusal to consider providers’ claim of illegality was an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari and now hold the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in striking the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ last-minute effort to raise a new affirmative defense.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MESSERLI
2024 OK 56
Case Number: SCBD-7529
Decided: 06/25/2024
¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association instituted this disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1–A. Respondent agreed to certain facts, and a hearing was held before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. We find that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. We conclude that Respondent should be suspended for a period of two years and a day to commence on the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ABDOVEIS
2024 OK 55
Case Number: SCBD-7522
Decided: 06/25/2024
¶0 The Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the Respondent, Michael Robert Abdoveis, with three counts of professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of the Respondent’s conduct warrants a suspension of his law license for a period of one year. The Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DYER
2024 OK 54
Case Number: SCBD-7680
Decided: 06/24/2024
¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Superseding Information and Judgment In A Criminal Case from the following criminal matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma: United States of America v. Blaine Dyer, case no. CR-22-209-001-JD. Respondent Blaine Michael Dyer pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding Information, Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud, in violation of title 18, U.S. Code, sections 1346 and 1343. The court sentenced Respondent to imprisonment for a total term of 60 months. Respondent is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons by noon on July 1, 2024.
DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
2024 OK 53
Case Number: 121694
Decided: 06/25/2024
¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief that Respondents’ contract with a religious charter school violates state and federal law and is unconstitutional. Original jurisdiction is assumed, and we grant the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by Petitioner.
MATHIS v. KERR
2024 OK 52
Case Number: 120246
Decided: 06/25/2024
¶0 The plaintiffs/appellants worked for and delivered Amazon packages in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, area for the defendant/appellee, James Kerr. After Kerr fired them, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against him. Kerr sought to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration provisions of the plaintiffs’ employment contracts. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that they could not be compelled to arbitrate because federal and state law precluded arbitration. The trial court disagreed, granted the motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the lawsuit until completion of arbitration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari and hold that: 1) employees who deliver Amazon packages are exempted from arbitration under federal law; and 2) the district court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claims precludes arbitration of those claims under Oklahoma law.
CATHEY v. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR McCURTAIN COUNTY
2024 OK 50
Case Number: 121954
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 The Board of County Commissioners for McCurtain County, Oklahoma, approved a ballot proposal of a lodging tax increase to fund a new county hospital to be submitted to the voters. Title 19 O.S. 2021 §383 required the proposal to be published for four weeks in a county newspaper before the election, but the Board did not publish it as required. Instead, the Board, along with the Hospital, engaged in an extensive three-month campaign to inform voters of the measure. The campaign included the use of a multitude of radio advertisements, four billboards, a television interview, multiple newspaper articles, two town hall meetings, three civic club meetings, several social media posts, and one newspaper publication of the proposal two days before the election. After the measure was approved by the voters, a lodging renter and property owner filed a lawsuit in the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma, seeking to have the election declared null and void due to the lack of newspaper publication. The Hospital sought to have the election upheld. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and Hospital, and against the lodging renter and property owner. The renter and owner appealed and filed a motion for oral argument. We retained the cause, deny the motion for oral argument, and hold that because the county commissioners neglected to follow the statutory publication requirements the voter-approved lodging tax increase is invalid.
HAYES v. PENKOSKI
2024 OK 49
Case Number: 121158
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 This appeal originates from a protective order obtained by Petitioners, Sheena Hayes and Morgan Lawrence-Hayes, against Defendant, Richard Penkoski, based primarily on his posts on social media. Defendant appealed and we sua sponte retained the appeal.
REVERSED.
IN RE ADMINISTRATION OF NEXTGEN BAR EXAMINATION
2024 OK 48
Decided: 06/10/2024
¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court, pursuant to its general administrative authority, Okla. Const. art. VII, § 6, and pursuant to its sole authority to regulate the admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, hereby votes to adopt the NextGen Bar Examination in Oklahoma. The Court orders the NextGen Bar Examination to be administered beginning July 1, 2027.
IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2024 OK 45
Case Number: SCBD-7492
Decided: 06/10/2024
The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls and from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1-B, for the year 2022.
Pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Association and the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma by Order of this Court on June 12, 2023, for noncompliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2022. Based on its application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at their May 24, 2024 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement within one year of the suspension order. Further, the Board of Governors declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and their names should therefore be stricken from its membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024. This Court finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024 for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2022.
IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
2024 OK 44
Case Number: SCBD-7491
Decided: 06/10/2024
The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for Order Striking Names of attorneys from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s membership rolls for failure to pay dues as members of the Oklahoma Bar Association for the year 2023.
Pursuant to the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association (Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §2, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, were suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and prohibited from practicing law in the State of Oklahoma by this Court’s Order of June 12, 2023 and thereafter by Correction Order dated June 19, 2023, for failure to pay their 2023 dues in accordance with Article VIII, Section 2 of the Rules. Based upon the application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at its May 24, 2024 meeting that none of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have applied for reinstatement, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4 of the Rules, at the time of the filing of its application. The Board of Governors further declared that the members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall cease to be members of the Oklahoma Bar Association and that their names should therefore be stricken from the membership rolls and the Roll of Attorneys on June 12, 2024, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the Rules. This Court further finds that the actions of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association are in compliance with the Rules.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for failure to pay their dues as members of the Association for the year 2023.
GALBRAITH v. GALBRAITH
2024 OK 43
Case Number: 121849
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 The co-guardians of an incapacitated ward filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on behalf of their ward. The trial court held generally that the guardian did not have authority to file the petition on behalf of the ward. One of the co-guardians subsequently obtained authorization from the guardianship court to file the petition and then refiled. The wife of the ward filed a motion to dismiss alleging Oklahoma law does not allow a guardian to initiate a divorce on behalf of a ward. The trial court agreed and entered a more detailed judgment specifying the caselaw and statutes it believed supported the motion to dismiss. The guardian appealed the judgment to this Court and we previously retained the matter on our own motion.
BAYOUTH v. DEWBERRY
2024 OK 42
Case Number: 121897
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 This matter is an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of the estate of a deceased co-employee. The dispositive issue concerns whether, for purposes of the exclusive remedy provision under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee, who injures another employee, must be acting within the course and scope of their employment when the incident occurs in order to receive the protection of the exclusive remedy provision. We answer in the affirmative.
PAYTON v APPLEGATE
2024 OK 41
Case Number: 120334
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 In a probate matter, the District Court of Wagoner County, the Honorable Dennis Shook, ruled that the intestate decedent’s cattle operation was marital property, not separate property, for purposes of distributing the decedent’s estate. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, reversed. Decedent’s widow sought certiorari review.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED
RANDLE v. CITY OF TULSA
2024 OK 40
Case Number: 121502
Decided: 06/12/2024
¶0 Plaintiffs, survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, brought suit against Defendants seeking abatement of the public nuisance caused by Defendants’ unreasonable, unwarranted, and/or unlawful acts and omissions that began with the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 and continue to this day. Plaintiffs also sought recovery for unjust enrichment for Defendants’ exploitation of the Massacre for their own economic and political gain. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss finding Plaintiffs’ Petition failed to state a justiciable public nuisance claim and failed to allege a legally cognizable abatement remedy and dismissed Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim for failure to cure a defective pleading. Plaintiffs appealed, asserting the district court erred in dismissing both claims. We retained this matter on Plaintiffs’ motion and hold that Plaintiffs’ grievances do not fall within the scope of our state’s public nuisance statute and Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support a claim for the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12 v. STATE
2024 OK 39
Case Number: 121987
Decided: 06/11/2024
¶0 School district filed an application for the Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue extraordinary and declaratory relief to prevent enforcement of rules by the State Board of Education, State Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. Respondents seek to use the rules in enforcement proceedings brought against the school district before the State Board. We assume original jurisdiction, in part, over the controversy. We deny respondents’ motion for oral argument. We hold: (1) State statutes give a local school board power and a type of statutory discretion to supply books for a school library that meet local community standards, and (2) No statute gives the State Board of Education, State Department of Education, and Superintendent of Public Instruction the authority to supervise, examine, and control a local school board’s exercise of this discretion when the local school board applies local community standards for books it supplies for a local school library.
IN RE UNIFORM BAR EXAMINATION MINIMUM PASSING SCORE
2024 OK 38
Decided: 05/28/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Oklahoma Supreme Court, pursuant to its general administrative authority, Okla. Const. art. VII, § 6, and pursuant to its sole authority to regulate the admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, hereby orders that the minimum passing score in Oklahoma for the Uniform Bar Examination shall be 260, effective July 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 28th day of May 2024.
KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.
2024 OK 37
Case Number: 121047
Decided: 05/21/2024
¶0 In a tort action brought against various entities by the widow of the deceased based upon alleged tortfeasor liability by alleged non-employers and after a worker’s compensation award, the employer filed a motion to dismiss a third-party petition filed against employer by one of the defendants. The Honorable Anthony L. Bonner, District Judge, sustained the motion to dismiss. Defendant appealed and the appeal was retained by the Supreme Court. We hold: (1) The exclusive remedy and liability language in 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles, but those relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the same physical injury used by a party for a compensable workers’ compensation award; and (2) The language of 85A O.S.Supp.2014, § 5 does not prohibit an employer from creating an indemnity agreement holding others harmless for the employer’s intentional conduct not subject to exclusive workers’ compensation remedies.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARLEAN
2024 OK 36
Case Number: SCBD-7652
Decided: 05/20/2024
¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, and Judgment and Sentence in the following matters in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Kelly John Barlean, case no. CF-2021-3557, and State of Oklahoma v. Kelly Barlean, case no. CM-2022-4468. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the charge of felony Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation in case no. CF-2021-3557 was reduced to misdemeanor Domestic Assault and Battery. Following pleas of guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault and battery in the combined cases, the court deferred sentencing for 3 years until January 4, 2026.1
¶2 Rule 7.3 of the RGDP provides: “Upon receipt of the certified copies of Judgment and Sentence on a plea of guilty, order deferring judgment and sentence, indictment or information and the judgment and sentence, the Supreme Court may by order immediately suspend the lawyer from the practice of law until further order of the Court.” Having received certified copies of these papers and orders, this Court orders that Kelly John Barlean is immediately suspended from the practice of law. Kelly John Barlean is directed to show cause, if any, no later than June 4, 2024, why this order of interim suspension should be set aside. See RGDP Rule 7.3. The OBA has until June 18, 2024, to respond.
¶3 Rule 7.2 of the RGDP provides that a certified copy of a plea of guilty, an order deferring judgment and sentence, or information and judgment and sentence of conviction “shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules.” Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the RGDP, Kelly John Barlean has until July 3, 2024, to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be made. The written return of the lawyer shall be verified and expressly state whether a hearing is desired. The lawyer may in the interest of explaining his conduct or by way of mitigating the discipline to be imposed upon him, submit a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The OBA has until July 18, 2024 to respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting the recommendation of discipline.
¶4 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT in conference on May 20, 2024.
LATIGO OIL & GAS v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO.
2024 OK 35
Case Number: 120969
Decided: 05/21/2024
¶0 Latigo Oil & Gas, Inc., filed a Petition for Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, and Injunctive Relief against BP America Production Company to enforce its preferential right to purchase certain mineral interests offered for sale as part of a package-deal by BP to a third party. Prior to trial, Latigo filed an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief requesting the trial court to enjoin BP from selling the burdened interests to the third-party buyer pending trial. The trial court granted Latigo’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief finding the evidence did not show Latigo was likely to succeed on the merits. We granted certiorari and hold the trial court’s grant of injunctive relief was not an abuse of discretion.
ANAYA-SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
2024 OK 34
Case Number: 120403
Decided: 05/14/2024
¶0 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified three questions of state law to this Court pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2011, §§ 1601-1611.
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PART.
Rex Travis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Bart J. Robey, Chubbuck, Duncan & Robey, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Thomas H. Crouch, Meagher & Greer, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant/Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit certified to this Court three questions of law:
1. Where Mr. Smith was injured and killed as a passenger in an employer-owned vehicle that had $7,000,000 of liability insurance and has not shown the claim would exceed $7,000,000, but where Mr. Smith cannot recover under the policy because the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy provision of 85A O.S. § 5, bars suit against the employer, does that vehicle qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of 36 O.S. § 3636(C)?
2. Does 36 O.S. § 3636 permit FADCO, a corporate named insured, to purchase uninsured motorist coverage for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members who qualify as insureds, but to reject uninsured motorist coverage for other persons who qualify as insureds?
3. If FADCO’s insurance policy with Federated violates 36 O.S. § 3636, does the legislative intent or purpose of § 3636 impute the $1,000,000 uninsured motorist coverage policy limit FADCO purchased for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members who qualify as insureds or [does] the $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident minimum uninsured motorist coverage policy limit in § 3636 [apply] to the other persons who qualify as insureds?
¶2 We answer the first question in the affirmative. Where Decedent was injured and killed as a passenger in an employer-owned vehicle with $7,000,000 of liability insurance and no proof was submitted to show the claim would exceed $7,000,000, but where Decedent cannot recover under the policy because the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision of 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 5 bars suit against the employer, the vehicle qualifies as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of 36 O.S.Supp.2014, § 3636(C).
¶3 We answer the second question in the negative and conclude that the plain language of 36 O.S.Supp.2014, § 3636(G) requires a named insured to either elect or reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for all insureds under the policy, treating every insured in the same manner.
¶4 Finally, because the record is undeveloped and the parties did not submit legal arguments pertaining to the third certified question, we decline to answer it for the first time.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA
2024 OK 33
Case Number: SCBD-7443
¶0 Respondent pled guilty to a first time non-repetitive misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol. Respondent collided with two different vehicles, injuring six people, three of whom were children, inflicting significant bodily harm. The Court issued an order of interim suspension in a professional disciplinary action filed under Rule 7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1A. The Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) for a hearing. This matter is before us for final discipline. The PRT and Bar Association recommends a six-month suspension from the date of this Court’s final order. We hold the record supports a finding that the appropriate discipline is a one-year suspension with credit for time served under the interim suspension.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRIFFIN
2024 OK 32
Case Number: SCBD-7650
Decided: 05/06/2024
¶1 Before the Court are (1) the affidavit of Respondent Lee Griffin, filed pursuant to Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow her to resign from the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her right to practice law; and (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
Decision of the Court
¶2 Griffin was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar on September 27, 1996. On April 8, 2024, she filed an Affidavit of Resignation Pending Disciplinary proceedings.
¶3 In her affidavit, Griffin states (a) that she freely and voluntarily renders her resignation, (b) that she has not been subjected to coercion or duress, and (c) that she is aware of the consequences of submitting her resignation.
¶4 Griffin states she is aware that the OBA has opened an investigation into several grievances filed against her in the following matters:
(a) DC-23-193: Grievance by Marianne Tyer. In this client-initiated matter arising from a divorce proceeding, Griffin allegedly failed to disburse funds that had been transferred to her IOLTA account upon the sale of marital property; thereafter, Griffin allegedly failed to maintain funds in the account, and sought to delay the proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of her actions.
(b) DC-23-194: Grievance by Ronald Tyer. In this client-initiated matter arising from a divorce proceeding, Griffin allegedly failed to disburse funds that had been transferred to her IOLTA account upon the sale of marital property; thereafter, Griffin allegedly failed to maintain funds in the account, and sought to delay the proceedings in order to avoid the consequences of her actions.
(c) DC-23-204: Grievance by Patricia Woodall. Client alleged that Griffin neglected and failed to take action to seek visitation rights with grandchild on client’s behalf, even though client had paid attorney fees in advance.
(d) DC-24-27: Grievance by OBA General Counsel. This investigation concerns criminal charges for embezzlement which were filed against Griffin in Delaware County District Court Case No. CF-2024-26.
¶5 Griffin is aware that if these allegations are proven, they would constitute, at a minimum, a violation of Rules 1.15, 3.3, and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 3-A; Rule 1.15 of the ORPC, 5 O.S. Supp.2023, ch. 1, app. 3-A; and Rule 1.3, RGDP, as well as her oath as an attorney.
¶6 Griffin’s affidavit further states:
a. She is aware that the OBA has the burden of proving the allegations against her, but waives any and all rights to contest the allegations.
b. She is aware that approval of her resignation is within this Court’s discretion.
c. She is familiar with, and agrees to comply with, Rule 9.1 of the RGDP within twenty days following the date that her resignation is approved; that she will comply with Rule 11 of the RGDP as a prerequisite to seeking reinstatement to the practice of law, and that she will make no such application prior to the expiration of five years from the effective date of her resignation.
d. She acknowledges that as a result of her conduct, the OBA’s Client Security Fund may receive claims from her former clients, and she agrees to reimburse the Fund for the principal amounts and statutory interest for claims that it approves before seeking reinstatement to the practice of law.
e. She affirms that she will tender her OBA membership card to the Office of the General Counsel or destroy the card.
f. She acknowledges that she is responsible for paying any costs of these proceedings, which this Court may order her to pay, prior to seeking reinstatement.
g. She affirms that she has had the opportunity to seek the advice of legal counsel in these matters, including her tendered resignation.
¶7 We determine the effective date of Griffin’s resignation to be May 6, 2024.
¶8 This Court finds Griffin’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is in compliance with all the requirements outlined in Rule 8.1 of the RGDP and should be accepted.
¶9 Griffin’s OBA number is 17022. Her official roster address, as shown by OBA records, is P.O. Box 600, Centerton, Arkansas, 72719.
¶10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings is approved.
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and that she make no application for reinstatement to membership in the OBA prior to the expiration of five years from the effective date of this Order. See RGDP Rules 8.2 and 11.1.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, return all client files, and refund unearned fees.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of reinstatement, Griffin shall reimburse the Client Security Fund for any monies expended because of her malfeasance or nonfeasance. See RGDP Rule 11.1(b).
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Griffin reimburse the OBA for the cost of investigating these matters, in the amount of $105.62, within ninety days of the date of this Order.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of May, 2024.
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 31
Decided: 05/06/2024
ORDER
This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2023 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2024. See 2024 OK 16 (SCAD 2024-17, dated March 11, 2024).
Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rules 18(f) and 20(g). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has advised that the interpreters listed in attached Exhibit A have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the credential of each of these interpreters.
This Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the Registered Courtroom Interpreters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective May 6, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of MAY, 2024.
Exhibit A
Name | Reason |
Cindy Avila | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Charles Escalante | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Jesus Flores | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Daniela Hernandez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Gisele Jones | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Cesar Leon | 2023 Continuing Education |
Rosanna Lopez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Juan Martinez | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Elvira Miramontes | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Valentina Saldana | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
Alfredo Sampayo | 2023 Continuing Education |
Cynthia Santiesteban | 2023 Continuing Education and 2024 Renewal Fees |
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 30
Decided: 05/06/2024
ORDER: This Court previously suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2023 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024. See 2024 OK 11 (SCAD 2024-15, dated March 4, 2024).
Under the applicable rules, a suspended certificate which has not been reinstated on or before April 15 shall be administratively revoked on that date. 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. I, Rules 20(e) and 23(f). The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has advised that the court reporters listed below have not reinstated their credential as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the certificate of each of these reporters.
The Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the certified shorthand reporters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective May 6, 2024.
Shea Aleman CSR #2034
Lisa Buckles CSR #1052
Marlene Johnson CSR #322
Suelynn Morgan CSR #1397
Melissia Prawl CSR #1751
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6TH day of MAY, 2024.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KALKA
2024 OK 29
Case Number: SCBD-7576
Decided: 05/06/2024
¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Joseph Dewayne Kalka (Respondent), OBA No. 33206, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. A, app. 1-A, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. Upon consideration of the Complainant’s application and the Respondent’s affidavit in support of resignation, we find:
1) On March 21, 2024, Respondent submitted his written Affidavit of Resignation from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association pending investigation of a disciplinary proceeding.
2) Respondent’s Affidavit reflects that:
a. The affidavit was freely and voluntarily rendered;
b. He was not subjected to coercion or duress; and
c. He was fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation.
3) Respondent states that although he is aware that the resignation is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, he will treat it as effective on the date of filing his resignation. Respondent is aware of an investigation by the Bar Association regarding the following criminal conviction which is sufficient as a basis for discipline:
a. State of Oklahoma v. Joseph Dewayne Kalka, Lincoln County, Case No. CF-2022-265: On October 26, 2022 Kalka was charged with (Count 1) Domestic Abuse by Attempted Strangulation by strangling or attempting to strangle Laura Kalka, his wife, and (Count 2) Domestic Abuse — a misdemeanor by striking Laura Kalka, his wife, about the head, face and body with his hands and fists.1 On October 13, 2023 Kalka pled guilty to these charges, he received a term of imprisonment with execution of sentence suspended as follows: a term of three (3) years for Count 1 and one (1) year for Count 2; each count to run concurrently one with the other. Kalka was ordered to pay a $100 fine for Count 1 and $100 fine for Count 2.
4) Respondent is aware that a Notice of Criminal Plea of Guilty and Suspended Sentence was filed in this case on November 7, 2023 and that pursuant to Rule 7.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), the documents submitted as exhibits to the Notice are “conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline.”
5) Respondent is further aware that on December 27, 2023, this Honorable Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) to hold a hearing, to make a recommendation on whether final discipline should be imposed, and to make a recommendation of the final decision to be imposed.
6) Respondent is aware that should the PRT find that final discipline should be imposed, his conduct as set forth in the Notice would constitute at a minimum, violations of Rules 8.4 (a) and (b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, a, 3-A and Rule 1.3, RGDP, and his oath as an attorney.
7) Respondent is aware that the burden of proof regarding the allegations set forth in the Complaint and in the above referenced grievances rests upon the Oklahoma Bar Association. However, Respondent waives any and all right to contest these allegations.
8) Respondent is aware that pursuant to Rule 8.2, RGDP, either approval or disapproval of this resignation is within the discretion of Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
9) Respondent is familiar with the provisions of Rule 9.1 RGDP, and he herby agrees to comply with all provisions of Rule 9.1 within twenty (20) days following the Court’s approval of my resignation pending disciplinary proceedings.
10) Respondent acknowledges and agrees that he may be reinstated to the practice of law only upon full compliance with the conditions and procedures prescribed by Rule 11, RGDP, and that he may make no application for reinstatement prior to the expiration of five (5) years from the effective date of the Order approving this Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
11) The official roster address of Respondent as shown by the Oklahoma Bar Association records is: 2511 S. Clay Rd., Yale, OK 74085-6734.
12) Respondent affirmed that he would tender his Oklahoma Bar Association membership card to the office of the General Counsel or destroy it.
13) Respondent acknowledges that he is responsible to reimburse any costs of these proceedings that the Supreme Court orders him to pay prior to seeking reinstatement.
14) Respondent acknowledges that his actions may result in claims against the Client Security Fund, and he agrees to reimburse the fund for any disbursements made because of his actions prior to the filing of any application for reinstatement; and
15) Respondent stated that he had the opportunity to seek and obtain the advice of legal counsel on these matters, including the resignation submitted herein.
16) Having so stated, Respondent requested that he be allowed to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish his right to practice law.
¶2 It is therefore ORDERED that Complainant’s application is approved and Respondent’s resignation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is accepted and approved effective March 21, 2024.
¶3 It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he makes no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to May 5, 2029.
¶4 It is further ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1 app. 1-A, by no later than May 27, 2024.
¶5 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 6th day of May, 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF: M.R.
2024 OK 28
Case Number: 120910; Comp. w/120844; 121060
Decided: 04/23/2024
¶0 The appellants are the parents of four children who were adjudicated deprived and, after a jury trial, the trial court terminated their parental rights. Each parent filed a separate appeal of their respective termination orders and both are considered within this opinion. A separate appeal, unrelated to the parties in this case, was made a companion due to a first impression issue concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, presented in Case No. 120,844, and Victoria Rodriguezes’ appeal. Case No. 120,844 is not addressed within this opinion. All three appeals were retained by this Court. We hold that Victoria Rodriguez lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of ICWA and that the trial court’s failure to apply the heightened burden of proof neither violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law nor constituted legal error. As to the remaining issues raised on appeal, we hold that the trial court’s orders terminating parental rights should be affirmed.
AMENDMENT OF RULES 1.260 AND 1.261 OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
2024 OK 27
Decided: 04/22/2024
¶1 Rules 1.260 and 1.261 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ch. 15, app. 1, are hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The remainder of Rule 1.260 and Rule 1.261 is unaffected by the amendment. The amended Rules will be effective June 1, 2024.
¶2 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 22nd day of April 2024.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARRS
2024 OK 26
Case Number: SCBD-7599
Decided: 04/15/2024
¶1 Pursuant to Rule 8 (Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings), Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, Respondent submitted an affidavit, filed April 5, 2024, seeking to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law pending disciplinary proceedings. On the same date, Complainant filed an application to this Court for an order approving the resignation of Respondent and an application to assess costs in the amount of $1,468.01. Upon consideration of the matter we find:
1. Respondent executed an affidavit on March 28, 2024, wherein he asks to be allowed to resign his membership in the OBA and relinquish his right to practice law. Respondent is aware that his resignation is subject to the approval of this Court within its discretion and upon its acceptance, he avers he will conduct his affairs accordingly.
2. Respondent’s resignation was freely and voluntarily tendered, he was not subject to coercion or duress, and he was fully aware of the consequences of submitting his resignation.
3. Respondent is aware that formal charges have been filed against him pursuant to Rule 6 in SCBD 7599, alleging two counts of violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, with enhancement based on a prior private reprimand in OBAD No. 2305. Respondent attached a copy of the Complaint, filed January 11, 2024, setting forth the specific allegations against him.
…
¶2 IT IS ORDERED that Complainant’s application for an Order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings of Respondent, Richard David Marrs, is granted, Respondent’s resignation is accepted and approved, and his right to practice law is relinquished as of the date of his affidavit of resignation.
¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name, Richard David Marrs, be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he may not apply for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to expiration of five years from the effective date of this Order.
¶4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with Rule 9.1, of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
¶5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall pay costs in the amount of $1,468.01 to the Oklahoma Bar Association within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 15th day of April, 2024.
FLEIG v. LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP
2024 OK 25
Case Number: 119432
Decided: 04/08/2024
¶0 The appellant, Carl Fleig, lost a lawsuit stemming from a contract dispute over roofing work done in conjunction with the purchase of a house. Subsequently, the trial court awarded $51,331.00 in attorney fees against Fleig. He appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s attorney fee award. We granted certiorari only to address whether the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees evidences that the trial court complied with the directives of State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659. We hold that it does not.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DURBIN II
2024 OK 24
Case Number: SCBD-7528
Decided: 04/08/2024
¶1 On July 21, 2023, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Ronald Edward Durbin, II, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. On March 3, 2024, Complainant filed an amended complaint and verified application for an order for an order of emergency interim suspension pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.2A of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #52 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY v. WALTERS
2024 OK 23
Case Number: 121581
Decided: 04/02/2024
¶0 Several school districts filed an action in the district court, alleging they received insufficient State Aid payments for several years. They sought writs of mandamus to compel the Oklahoma State Board of Education to demand and recoup excessive State Aid payments made to other school districts and pay the underfunded school districts. All parties sought summary judgment. The district court granted the school district intervenors’ motion for summary judgment, concluding the State Board of Education did not have a duty to seek repayment of excessive State Aid payments made to other schools until auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector performed an audit. The school districts appealed. This Court agreed with the district court, holding that the audit used by the State Board of Education when demanding repayment must be performed by auditors approved by the State Auditor and Inspector. However, the school districts’ filings raised the issue of their standing to judicially compel legislative appropriations, and this Court remanded the case to adjudicate standing. On remand, the parties again filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the appellees’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the school districts failed to establish that they commenced their action before the lapse of any State Aid appropriations from which they sought additional funds. The district court dismissed the case based on the school districts’ lack of standing. The school districts appealed, and this Court retained the appeal. We hold that the school districts have no legally cognizable aggrieved interest, and they lack standing.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KELLY
2024 OK 22
Case Number: SCBD-7628
Decided: 04/01/2024
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Christopher Roberts Kelly filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow him to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
STITT v. TREAT
2024 OK 21
Case Number: 121497
Decided: 04/02/2024
¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking declaratory relief that Respondents lacked authority to validly pass two bills relating to Tribal compacts on behalf of the State. We assume original jurisdiction and deny declaratory relief.
RE: REINSTATEMENT OF CREDENTIAL OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER
2024 OK 20
Decided: 04/01/2024
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters
recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the
following interpreter: Byron Lema be reinstated, as all applicable fees have been paid and the interpreter has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2023 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rules 18 and
20, that the credential of the named interpreter be reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court, effective April 1, 2024.
SCHIEWE v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO
2024 OK 19
Case Number: 121,203
Decided: 03/12/2024
¶0 This case arises out of an airplane crash that occurred in September 2010. Plaintiffs, Jade P. Schiewe and Zachary Pfaff (Pilots) filed suit in Tulsa County District Court against Defendant, Cessna Aircraft Company, for negligently failing to revise its service manual. Cessna filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Pilots’ claims were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). After years of litigation, the Tulsa County District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cessna. We retained Pilots’ appeal to determine whether GARA’s 18-year statute of repose applies.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF TAYLOR
2024 OK 18
Decided: 03/11/2024
¶1 The petitioner, Lyndon C. Taylor, resigned from the Oklahoma Bar Association on December 12, 2022, and was stricken from the roll of attorneys on December 16, 2022. On September 26, 2023, Taylor petitioned this Court for reinstatement as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. On January 10, 2024, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended that the attorney be reinstated. Upon consideration of the matter, we find:
1) The petitioner has met all the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement in the Oklahoma Bar Association as set out in Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch.1, app. 1-A.
2) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.
3) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
4) The petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the good moral character which would entitle him to be reinstated to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition of Lyndon C. Taylor for reinstatement be granted.
¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reinstatement is conditioned upon: 1) the payment of $645.93 in costs associated with these proceedings; and 2) the payment of the 2024 Bar dues. Costs and dues shall be paid within 30 days of the date of this order and reinstatement is conditioned upon payment.
BROWN v. DEMPSTER
2024 OK 17
Case Number: 119,569
Decided: 03/12/2024
¶0 A mother seeks recovery from the loss of her minor child, who drowned when he fell into a neighbor’s swimming pool. She alleged negligence against the owner of the swimming pool. The district court granted the property owner’s motion for summary judgment, holding the owner did not owe a duty to the child. The mother appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, concluding that it was a question of fact for the jury to decide as to whether the swimming pool was an attractive nuisance. This Court granted certiorari. We hold the swimming pool was not an attractive nuisance as a matter of law. However, a question of fact exists as to whether the owner is liable under ordinary premises liability law, precluding summary judgment in favor of the property owner.
RE SUSPENSION OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2024 OK 16
Decided: 03/11/2024
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the credentials of each of the Oklahoma Registered Courtroom Interpreter listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. II, Rule 18(c), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACKSON
2024 OK 15
Case Number: SCBD-7581
Decided: 03/04/2024
¶1 The State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (Complainant) has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Guy Wade Jackson (Respondent), OBA No. 4586, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent wishes to resign pending disciplinary proceedings and investigation into alleged misconduct, as provided in Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. A, app. 1-A, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. Upon consideration of the Complainant’s application and the Respondent’s affidavit in support of resignation, we find:
1) On December 23, 2023, Respondent submitted his written Affidavit of Resignation from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association pending investigation of a disciplinary proceeding.
2) Respondent’s Affidavit reflects that:
a. The affidavit was freely and voluntarily rendered;
b. He was not subjected to coercion or duress; and
c. He was fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation.
3) Respondent states that although he is aware that the resignation is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, he will treat it as effective on the date of filing his resignation. Respondent outlines the grievances which are under investigation by the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association as follows:
a. DC-23-211: Grievance by General Counsel: On September 26, 2023, a Corrected Verified Emergency Application for Citation for Indirect Contempt of Court was filed against Respondent in Oklahoma County Court Case No. CJ-2015-120 (consolidated with CJ-2015-189 and CJ-2019-6289). This Application was based on his continuous, contemptuous refusal to obey multiple court orders related to proceedings attempting to collect judgments in the amount of $73,965.24 and $208,003.53 and an arbitration award in the amount of $9,939,514.03. These judgments and the award were imposed against him for misconduct involving his representation of several clients and trust beneficiaries.1
…
¶2 It is therefore ORDERED that Complainant’s application is
approved and Respondent’s resignation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is accepted and approved effective December 12, 2023.
¶3 It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that he makes no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to December 12, 2028.
¶4 It is further ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1 app. 1-A, by no later than March 25, 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF E.J.T.
2024 OK 14
Case Number: 120735
Decided: 03/05/2024
¶0 Mother sought certiorari review from the Court of Civil Appeals’ Opinion affirming the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights following a non-jury trial. On certiorari, Mother preserved only one claim of error, whether the record supports a finding that Mother waived jury trial in a parental termination proceeding. To resolve this question we must determine the following: (1) whether a Court Minute memorializing a contemporaneous court proceeding is sufficient to support a party’s oral consent to waiver of a jury trial in a parental termination proceeding; and (2) whether a party who proceeds to trial, without any demand for jury trial, and without objecting to non-jury trial has waived any right to a jury trial? We answer both questions in the affirmative. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATE CHAMBER OF OKLAHOMA v. COBBS
2024 OK 13
Case Number: 121777
Decided: 03/04/2024
¶1 The Court hereby assumes original jurisdiction pursuant to 34 O.S.2021, § 8 and denies all relief. Title 34 O.S.2021, § 8(B) provides the public with a right to “file a protest as to the constitutionality of the [initiative] petition, by a written notice to the Supreme Court and the proponent or proponents filing the petition.” Subsections (C) and (D) of section 8 provide for a hearing for and against the sufficiency of the petition and for this Court to decide whether such petition is in the form required by the statutes. Initiative Petition No. 446 does not clearly or manifestly violate either the Oklahoma or United States Constitution. See In re Initiative Petition No. 420, State Question No. 804, 2020 OK 9, ¶ 14, 458 P.3d 1088, 1093–94; In re Initiative Petition No. 362, State Question 669, 1995 OK 77, ¶ 12, 899 P.2d 1145, 1151. Initiative Petition No. 446 is legally sufficient. SeeIn re Initiative Pet. No. 358, 1994 OK 27, ¶ 7, 870 P.2d 782, 785. Respondents may proceed in the gathering of signatures on the initiative petition.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF REED
2024 OK 12
Case Number: SCBD-7552
Decided: 03/05/2024
¶0 Petitioner, Kim Reed, filed a petition for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal unanimously recommended that Petitioner should be reinstated. The Oklahoma Bar Association does not oppose Petitioner’s reinstatement. Upon review, we hold that Petitioner should be reinstated.
RE SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2024 OK 11
Decided: 03/04/2024
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the suspension of the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Court Reporters listed on the attached Exhibit for failure to comply with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2024.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. 1, Rules 20(c) and 23(d), failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements on or before February 15 shall result in administrative suspension on that date.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MUSKOGEE COUNTY v. KING
2024 OK 10
Case Number: 121834
Decided: 03/04/2024
ORDER
Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. 7, §4. See also Movants to Quash Multicounty Grand Jury Subpoena v. Dixon, 2008 OK 36, ¶¶5-7, 184 P.3d 546. Respondent, or any other assigned judge, is hereby prohibited from impaneling a grand jury based on the number of signatures certified by the Muskogee County Election Board Secretary (2,661) in GF-2023-1, Muskogee County. The number of certified signatures is insufficient to meet the constitutional requirements to impanel a grand jury under Article 2, Section 18 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
BRASSFIELD v. STATE
2024 OK 9
Case Number: 119998
Decided: 02/27/2024
¶0 Appellant sought to expunge his arrest records pursuant to 22 O.S. Supp. 2022, § 18(A). The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation objected, arguing that Appellant was not qualified for expungement because he had pending charges against him due to an ongoing investigation by the federal government and the Cherokee Tribe. The district court denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari. We hold that an ongoing investigation into potential criminal charges is not a pending charge under Section 18(A), and Appellant qualified to seek expungement.
IN RE AMENDMENT OF OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.200
2024 OK 8
Decided: 02/26/2024
¶1 The Court hereby amends Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.200, 12 O.S., ch. 15, app. 1, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B, effective immediately.
IN RE APPROVAL OF REVISED JUVENILE DEPRIVED UNIFORM ORDERS
2024 OK 7
Decided: 02/12/2024
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached revised juvenile deprived uniform orders effective May 1, 2024. The Court further directs that all judges with juvenile docket responsibilities use the attached forms beginning May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR
IN RE APPROVAL OF UNIFORM JUDGMENT OF ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER
2024 OK 6
Decided: 02/12/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached judgment of adjudication as a youthful offender, effective May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
IN RE APPROVAL OF UNIFORM YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PLEA OF GUILTY ORDER/ADDENDUMS
2024 OK 5
Decided: 02/12/2024
ORDER
¶1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Oversight and Advisory Committee and hereby adopts the attached order and addendums for youthful offender plea of guilty, effective May 1, 2024.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE the 12th day of February, 2024.
/S/CHIEF JUSTICE
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
JACKSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE DISTRICT v. KIRKLAND
2024 OK 4
Case Number: 121510
Decided: 02/13/2024
¶0 After an ambulance collided with a turnpike tollbooth, the injured toll-worker filed a lawsuit against the ambulance driver and her employer, the Jackson County Emergency Medical Services District. The medical district sought to dismiss the lawsuit. It argued that it was entitled to governmental immunity, and that the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2021 §155(14) applied to prohibit recovery because the toll-worker had recovered workers compensation benefits. The trial court denied the dismissal. The medical district filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition in this Court to prevent the trial court from proceeding further. We assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition by opinion. We hold that: 1) pursuant to the Okla. Const. art. 10, §9C, although the medical district is a unique entity, it is subject to lawsuits through its board of trustees to the same extent as any Oklahoma municipality or county; and 2) the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2021 §§155(14) et seq., is applicable to preclude recovery.
BASE v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION
2024 OK 3
Case Number: 119366
Decided: 02/06/2024
¶0 This oil and gas case involves a dispute over the amount of royalties that Defendant/Appellee/Respondent Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. (hereinafter “Devon”) has paid to The Eunice S. Justice Amended, Revised, and Restated 1990 Revocable Trust Agreement Executed on the 31st Day of January 2011 (hereinafter “the Trust”) since production commenced in 2017 at nine wells collectively called the Bernhardt Wells. The trustees of the Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Petitioners Kaye Frances Base and Arlyn Joe Justice (hereinafter “Trustees”), allege that the Trust is entitled to recover a 3/16 royalty under a 1978 Lease executed between everyone’s predecessors-in-interest; but Devon alleges its interest arises from an earlier 1973 Lease under which the Trust is only entitled to receive the 1/8 royalty that it has paid. The Trustees filed suit against Devon in May of 2019, seeking to quiet title in favor of the 1978 Lease and to obtain pursuant to the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S.2021, §§ 570.1 et seq, both an accounting and a recovery of the 1/16 difference in royalties that Devon has allegedly underpaid. Nearly a year later, Devon sought summary judgment based on the 15-year statute of limitation found in 12 O.S.2021, § 93(4), arguing that Trustees’ quiet title action would have accrued by 1979 and been barred after 1994. The trial court granted Devon’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trustees’ subsequent motion for new trial. Trustees appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed by a 2-1 vote. Trustees then sought review on certiorari, arguing COCA failed to follow both this Court’s numerous precedents holding there is no statute of limitation on an equitable quiet title claim and this Court’s precedent in Claude C. Arnold Non-Operated Royalty Interest Properties v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 2021 OK 4, 485 P.3d 817, regarding when their claims accrued. We previously issued a writ of certiorari and now vacate COCA’s opinion, affirm the trial court’s summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.A.C.
2024 OK 2
Case Number: 120500
Decided: 02/06/2024
¶0 After being diagnosed with various progressive, degenerative diseases, Ward executed an advance directive instructing that her life not be extended by life-sustaining treatment, including artificially administered nutrition and hydration. Ward was later hospitalized and a PEG tube was inserted to provide artificially administered nutrition and hydration, contrary to the terms of her advance directive. After several guardianship proceedings, a trial was held on whether Ward’s PEG tube should remain in place. The trial court held that revocation of an advance directive is weighed by the clear and convincing standard of proof. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed in part, finding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. On certiorari review, we hold that an incapacitated or incompetent person retains the legal right to revoke their advance directive and revocation of an advance directive is weighed by the clear and convincing standard of proof.
STRICKLEN v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUND
2024 OK 1
Case Number: 120753
Decided: 01/30/2024
As Corrected: January 31, 2024
¶1 Petitioner brought a claim against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) based upon his permanent total disability from a combination of previously adjudicated injuries. The Fund argued it was not liable because the phrase “subsequent employer” in 85A O.S.Supp.2019 meant that a claim against the Fund required petitioner’s previously adjudicated injuries to have occurred with an employer other than his employer at the time of his last and most recent injury. Petitioner argued the MITF’s view of “subsequent employer” made the statute an unconstitutional “special law.” The Commission’s administrative law judge and the Commission agreed with the MITF and denied petitioner’s claim. We need not address the constitutional issue raised by the parties because: (1) We conclude the controverted statutory language does not have a meaning which would raise the constitutional issue addressed by the parties; (2) We reverse the Commission’s order that was based upon the erroneous view of the controverted statutory language; and (3) The cause is remanded for additional proceedings before the Commission on petitioner’s claim.