Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2025
Decisions
LAKE REGION ELECTRIC, et al. v. STATE, ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORP. COMMISSION, et al.
2025 OK 78
¶1 This is an appeal of a Final Order by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission sitting en banc issued August 18, 2020. Applicant/Appellant Lake Region Electric Cooperative (hereinafter “Lake Region”) sought an order enjoining Respondent/Appellee Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (hereinafter “OG&E”) from serving electric-consuming facilities owned by Intervenors/Appellees Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC. The basis for Lake Region’s requested injunction was its allegation that OG&E’s servicing of electricity at those facilities violated the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), 17 O.S.2011, §§ 158.21–158.32. The Corporation Commission seemingly agreed that OG&E had violated section 158.25(E) of RESCTA insofar as OG&E did not simply “extend[] its service” using its own retail distribution system as permitted under the One-Megawatt/Large-Load Exception, but rather used third party transmission lines to reach the facilities in Lake Region’s territory. See ROA at pp. 684–85, Doc. 98: Final Order 6–7, Aug. 18, 2020. We qualify that characterization as “seemingly agreed” because the Corporation Commission “recognized the similar issues raised in both this Cause and Cause No. PUD 201800075”–which was the matter on appeal in OG&E v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm’n (CKenergy I), 2023 OK 33, 535 P.3d 1218, overruled prospectively by OG&E v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm’n (People’s), 2025 OK 15, ¶ 64, 565 P.3d 418, 435–and because the Corporation Commission ultimately concluded in Cause No. PUD 201800075 that OG&E had violated section 158.25(E) of RESCTA. Id. at p.685, Final Order 7. Nevertheless, the Corporation Commission found that the case “involve[d] equitable defenses not addressed in Cause No. PUD 201800075, and should be determined based upon [its] individual facts and circumstances.” Id. In reaching those equitable issues, the Corporation Commission found that “laches is applicable as Lake Region neglected to seek a remedy in a timely fashion”; that “Lake Region’s claim is barred by waiver”; and that “Lake Region is now estopped to claim it has exclusive rights to this service.” Id. at pp. 687–88, Final Order 9–10. Thus, the Corporation Commission held that Lake Region’s application for injunctive relief should be denied in light of the equitable defenses affirmatively pled and proved by OG&E. Id. at p.688, Final Order 10.
¶2 The issues raised on appeal concerned whether the Large-Load Exception to RESCTA permits OG&E to connect with third-party transmission lines to “extend” its retail electric service to a customer in Lake Region’s certified territory and whether the equities were properly weighed. We retained this appeal in conjunction with our retention of the appeals filed in Case Nos. 118,857, 119,054, 119,083, 119,088, and 119,173 and our recall of assignment of the appeals in Case Nos. 117,896 and 117,902 to the Court of Civil Appeals, as all of these appeals involved issues arising under section 158.25(E) of RESCTA. This is the last of those appeals to be addressed. See CKenergy I, 2023 OK 33, 535 P.3d 1218(addressing the appeals in Case nos. 117,896 and 117,902), overruled prospectively by People’s, 2025 OK 15, 565 P.3d 418; People’s, 2025 OK 15, 565 P.3d 418(addressing Case No. 118,857); OG&E v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n (CKenergy II), 2025 OK 43, 571 P.3d 729(addressing Case Nos. 119,088 and 119,173); Okla. Elec. Coop. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 2025 OK 60, — P.3d — (addressing Case No. 119,083). Upon review of the record and briefs of the parties, this Court has determined the issues raised in this appeal have already been decided in our recent opinion in Oklahoma Electric Cooperative v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 2025 OK 60, — P.3d —. In Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, we held RESCTA’s Large-Load exception does not permit OG&E to connect with third-party transmission lines in order to extend its service into someone else’s certified territory in accord with our prior decision in People’s, 2025 OK 15, 565 P.3d 418, but that OG&E should nevertheless not be enjoined from serving the customer because People’s holding has prospective-only application. 2025 OK 60, ¶ 0, — P.3d at —. For that reason, we affirmed the Commission’s order in Oklahoma Electric Cooperative insofar as it permitted OG&E to continue providing retail electric service. We now affirm the Final Order of the Corporation Commission en banc in this matter for the same reason.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. DURBIN
2025 OK 77
Case Number: SCBD-7528
Decided: 10/21/2025
¶0 Respondent was an attorney licensed to practice law as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA). The OBA initiated a Rule 6 proceeding and alleged respondent’s professional misconduct. Respondent is currently prohibited from practicing law by an emergency interim order of suspension (2024 OK 24), and an order of suspension for his failure to comply with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education rules (2025 OK 39), and an order striking his name from the Roll of Attorneys due to his failure to pay dues (2025 OK 40). The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended respondent be disbarred. Respondent filed a resignation from the Bar Association and later filed a notice withdrawing his resignation. The OBA objected to the resignation and also filed a motion to strike respondent’s response brief. The OBA initiated a Rule 7, RGDP, summary disciplinary proceeding based upon respondent’s judgment and sentence and nolo contendere plea to violating 21 O.S. §136. The Rule 7 proceeding, S.C.B.D. No. 7922, is consolidated into the Rule 6 proceeding, S.C.B.D. No. 7528. We hold: (1) Respondent’s resignation does not comply with the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and is not approved. (2) Respondent’s pending motions are denied. (3) Complainant’s motion to strike respondent’s answer brief is denied. (4) Respondent violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct as well as provisions of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. (5) The proper professional discipline is to disbar respondent effective the date of his previous interim suspension. (6) Costs of the disciplinary proceeding are imposed on respondent. (7) The Disciplinary Rule 7 proceeding does not result in additional discipline because respondent is disbarred in the Rule 6 proceeding. Costs are assessed against respondent.
RE: Reinstatement of Credentials of Registered Courtroom Interpreters
2025 OK 76
Decided: 10/20/2025
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the following interpreter:
Maria Paula Rodriguez
be reinstated as she has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2024 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2025 and has paid all applicable fees.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. CONRADY
2025 OK 74
Decided: 10/14/2025
¶0 In an attorney-discipline proceeding initiated under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Respondent was charged with five counts of professional misconduct. The charges contain multiple allegations that Respondent neglected his clients and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed professional misconduct and failed to cooperate in responding to the grievances. The PRT recommended, by unanimous vote, that Respondent be disbarred. During the pendency of this Rule 6 proceeding, Complainant initiated a summary reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against Respondent under RGDP Rule 7.7. Upon de novo review, we order Respondent’s disbarment pursuant to both RGDP Rules 6 and 7.
AMERICA’S CAR MART v. THE HONORABLE DAMON CANTRELL
2025 OK 73
Case Number: 122581
Decided: 10/14/2025
¶0 The real parties in interest, the Naquins, sued Petitioner, America’s Car Mart, Inc. (ACM), concerning enforcement of a vehicle service warranty contract. Petitioner moved for partial summary judgment. Both parties agreed that, if constitutional, Title 15, Section 141.24(B) of the Service Warranty Act would govern the dispute. Respondent, Judge Cantrell, ruled that the statute constituted an unconstitutional special law and denied Petitioner’s motion. We disagree with that ruling and issue a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondent from enforcing it.
ESTATE OF CUNNINGHAM v. CHERYL MOORE et. al.
2025 OK 72
Case Number: 121999
Decided: 10/14/2025
¶0 Contesting a probate proceeding denying admission of an alleged 2019 Will, Moore and Oklahoma City Community Foundation, Inc. (“OCCF”) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s ruling: (1) determining venue was proper in Johnston County; (2) determining that Cheryl Moore (“Moore”) had renounced her right to an appointment as personal representative under the 2018 Will; and (3) admitting the 2018 Will to probate instead of the later alleged 2019 Will. On the Court’s motion, this matter was retained for disposition in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF CAREY
2025 OK 71
Case Number: SCBD-7792
Decided: 10/14/2025
¶0 Traci Cain Carey (Applicant) stopped paying bar dues to effectively resign from bar membership. As a result, Carey was suspended in June 2011 and stricken from the roll of attorneys in June 2012. Carey petitioned for reinstatement in November 2024. Following its hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal Trial Panel (Trial Panel) recommended we deny reinstatement. Upon de novo review, we agree.
In re: Amendments to Rule 24-Voluntary Retired Certificate Status and Inactive Status of the Rules of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2025 OK 70
Decided: 10/13/2025
Corrected Order: 10/14/2025
Rule 24 – Voluntary Retired Certificate Status and Inactive Status of the Oklahoma Rules of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Title 20, Chapter 20, Appendix 1, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit “A.” The remainder of Rule 24 is unaffected by the amendment. The amended rule shall be effective immediately upon the date of issuance of this order.
OKLAHOMA ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS v. ALVARADO
2025 OK 69
Case Number: 123201
Decided: 10/07/2025
¶0 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters (Board) brought a formal complaint against Respondent, a Registered Courtroom Interpreter, alleging grounds for professional discipline. Following a disciplinary hearing, the Board found a sufficient basis for discipline and ultimately recommended that Respondent’s enrollment as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter be revoked.
WHITE AND WADDELL v. STITT
2025 OK 68
Case Number: 123222
Decided: 10/07/2025
APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
¶0 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 632, an act relating to business courts. On July 15, 2025, the Court assumed original jurisdiction to issue a stay of the effectiveness of the Act pending further order of this Court. We deny the Governor’s Motion to Dismiss. We find that Petitioners possess standing. We hold S.B. 632 is an unconstitutional violation of Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Because we conclude the unconstitutional provisions of the Act are not severable, the Act is void in its entirety, and we need not adjudicate Petitioners’ additional claims challenging the Act.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. LOVELL
2025 OK 67
Case Number: SCBD-7962
Decided: 10/06/2025
ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION
PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Brian Noel Lovell (“Respondent”) 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 and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) Oklahoma Bar Association’s (“Complainant”) Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. ZAHL
2025 OK 66
Case Number: SCBD-7958
Decided: 10/06/2025
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Tracy Smith Zahl (“Respondent”) 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 her to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish her right to practice law, and (2) Oklahoma Bar Association’s (“Complainant”) Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.
BEVERLY THOMPSON, Next Friend of CHARLENE HUGHES, an Individual v. HEARTWAY CORPORATION
2025 OK 65
Case Number: 121922
Decided: 10/07/2025
¶0 Legal representative of nursing home resident brought medical negligence action against nursing home arising from resident’s care. District Court granted nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration and legal representative appealed. We retained the matter and now affirm the judgment of the district court.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. MCCOY
2025 OK 64
Case Number: SCBD-7938
Decided: 09/29/2025
¶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.
…
¶12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the OBA’s Application for Order Approving Resignation is approved.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that she makes no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association before September 29, 2030.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the RGDP, return all client files, and refund unearned fees.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall reimburse the Client Security Fund for any monies expended because of her malfeasance or nonfeasance.
PYBAS v. THE HONORABLE JEFF CRITES
2025 OK 63
Case Number: 123031
Decided: 09/30/2025
¶1 Petitioner Jamie Pybas, Interim Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (“OIDS”), requests that this Court assume original jurisdiction and enter a writ prohibiting the Honorable Jeff Crites, Judge of the District Court of Grant County, from enforcing his order denying OIDS’s request to vacate. OIDS sought to vacate an order directing it to represent indigent defendant Joshua Albright (“Albright”) in his request for resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act. The central issue before this Court is whether a district court judge can appoint OIDS to represent indigent individuals seeking relief under the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act for noncapital offenses.
¶2 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4. This case presents a potential conflict of jurisdiction between this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, as the Court of Criminal Appeals normally has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal matters. Id.; Dutton v. City of Midwest City,2015 OK 51, ¶ 19, 353 P.3d 532, 540. This matter was originally filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals judiciously transferred the cause to this Court, recognizing the threatened impact this case has on the court funds of both Oklahoma County and Grant County. In a similar case, we established that our Court has “general superintending control and administrative authority over all the court funds in this state.” Okla. Indigent Def. Sys. v. Hopper, 1993 OK 161, ¶ 2, 867 P.2d 1256, 1257. The Court therefore invokes its publici juris doctrine to assume original jurisdiction in this matter as OIDS has presented to the Court an issue of public interest that warrants an immediate judicial determination as it affects court funding issues in at least 75 counties where OIDS represents indigent defendants. See, e.g., State ex rel. Stuart v. Rapp, 1981 OK 87, ¶ 3, 632 P.2d 388, 389 (“[W]e will exercise original jurisdiction over such matters only when the issue involved is one of general or statewide concern, as opposed to issues of purely private or local concern.”). For the reasons stated herein, we grant the extraordinary relief sought by OIDS.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED;
WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
BJORKMAN, et al. v. NOBLE
2025 OK 62
Case Number: 121751
Decided: 09/30/2025
¶0 Appellant appeals from a post-judgment order of the district court denying his motion to vacate. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, unavoidable casualty or misfortune prevented Appellant from defending the action against him, justifying the vacation of the judgment.
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BARFELL v. FREEMAN HEALTH SYSTEM AND GULSHAN UPPAL, M.D., et al.
2025 OK 61
Case Number: 122045
Decided: 09/30/2025
¶0 The Petitioner filed suit alleging certain healthcare providers acted negligently in providing medical care to her. The district court granted a motion to dismiss for two of the providers finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Petitioner appealed and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We previously granted certiorari. We vacate the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, reverse the Judgment of the district court, and remand for further proceedings.
OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, et al., v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION
2025 OK 60
Case Number: 119083
Decided: 09/23/2025
¶0 Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC) appealed an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission denying OEC’s application for injunctive relief against Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E). OEC sought to enjoin OG&E from providing retail electric service to a customer located in OEC’s certified territory pursuant to the Large Load exception to the Retail Energy Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25, et seq. The Commission denied OEC’s application, but did so based only upon OG&E’s affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver, and laches. We retained OEC’s appeal. We hold that RESCTA’s Large Load exception does not permit OG&E to connect with third-party transmission lines in order to extend its service into OEC’s certified territory, in accord with this Court’s recent decision in Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm’n, 2025 OK 15, 565 P.3d 418[People’s]. The Commission erred to the extent its analysis fails to reach this conclusion. Because People’s has prospective-only application, however, the practical result is that OG&E will not be enjoined from serving the customer in the present case. We therefore affirm the Commission’s order insofar as it permits OG&E to continue providing retail electric service to the customer in OEC’s certified territory.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GIES
2025 OK 59
Case Number: 7780
Decided: 09/23/2025
¶0 Cassity B. Gies entered a nolo contendere plea to one felony count of child endangerment and one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence. The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. No interim suspension was imposed, and the matter proceeded to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. While the case was pending, Gies was also charged in municipal court with public intoxication. Following a hearing, the PRT recommended a public reprimand. We disagree and conclude the record supports suspending Gies for a period of six (6) months and assessing costs of this proceeding.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. HULSE
2025 OK 58
Case Number: 7950
Decided: 09/15/2025
ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION
PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Wesley Blake Hulse 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.
BAUGHMAN v. WORLD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et. al
2025 OK 57
Case Number: 121519
Decided: 09/16/2025
¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
THE TRIAL COURT ORDER VACATING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 448, STATE QUESTION NO. 836; THE OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN PARTY, et. al. v. SETTER, et. al.
2025 OK 56
Case Number: 123007
Decided: 09/16/2025
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TO PROTEST INITIATIVE PETITION
¶0 This is an original proceeding to determine the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No. 448, State Question No. 836 (hereinafter “IP 448”). IP 448 seeks to repeal Article III, Section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution that currently governs Oklahoma’s primary elections and to create a new primary system in its place under the proposed constitutional amendment that creates Article III-A in the Oklahoma Constitution. According to the Proponents/Respondents’ gist, IP 448 “would establish an ‘open primary’ system” in which “all candidates for a covered office would appear on the same primary ballot without regard to party affiliation, and any qualified voter could vote for any candidate without regard to party affiliation. A voter in the open primary could vote for only one candidate per covered office. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the open primary would advance to the general election, without regard to party affiliation and without regard to whether the candidates have been nominated or endorsed by any political party.” Pet’rs’ App. at p.A5, Gist. The gist goes on to provide that “[i]n all elections for covered offices, . . . candidates’ political party registration or independent status as of the date of candidate filing would appear on the ballot next to their names[,] and the ballot would state that a candidate’s indicated party registration does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the political party.” Id. The Protestants/Petitioners filed this protest pursuant to 34 O.S.2024, § 8(B) challenging the facial constitutionality of IP 448 as violating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right of association and challenging both the gist and ballot title as misleading. Upon our review, we hold IP 448 is legally sufficient. It survives Petitioners/Protestants’ facial constitutional challenge in light of applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Its gist is not misleading, and the challenge to its ballot title is premature.
INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 448, STATE QUESTION NO. 836
IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR GATHERING OF SIGNATURES
OBI HOLDING COMPANY, ET. AL v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
2025 OK 55
Case Number: 122347
Decided: 09/09/2025
ON APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION
¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee’s claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69(A)(4)(b) after Employee did not receive or seek medical benefits for a period of nine months. Administrative Law Judge denied Employer’s motion to dismiss, and the Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed. We retained the matter for disposition and reverse the order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
MATTER PREVIOUSLY RETAINED FOR DISPOSITION;
ORDER OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION VACATED;
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED.
OPINION
ROWE, C.J.:
BACKGROUND
¶1 Shaneese Schultz-Butzbach (“Employee”) claimed that her knee was injured at work. She timely filed a CC-Form 3 and filed a Form 9 Request for Hearing seeking medical and indemnity benefits under the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act. 1 OBI Holding Company (“Employer”) denied her claim, claiming she did not suffer an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Upon an order by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Employee’s knee was examined by Dr. Kevin Hargrove. Dr. Hargrove opined that Employee’s knee pain was unrelated to the work injury she described but stemmed from a preexisting knee issue.
¶2 After six months passed, during which Employee was not seen by Dr. Hargrove and no further pleadings were filed or hearings held, Employer filed for dismissal of the case. 2 Employer moved to dismiss Employee’s claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69(A)(4), 3 arguing Employee failed to receive or seek benefits, including medical treatment, for a period of six months.
¶3 Relying on White v. 918 Construction, 2023 OK CIV APP 2, 524 P.3d 405, ALJ denied Employer’s motion to dismiss holding Employee had satisfied subsection (a) of § 69(A)(4). Employer appealed ALJ’s decision to the Commission asserting ALJ’s Order was contrary to law and against the clear weight of the evidence. The Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”)affirmed ALJ’s Order and Employer subsequently sought review by this Court.
FUGATE v. STITT
2025 OK 54
Case Number: 122911
Decided: 09/08/2025
As Corrected: September 11, 2025
¶0 State Representative Andy Fugate filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order requesting the district court bar enforcement of Governor Kevin Stitt’s Executive Order requiring full-time state agency employees to return to in-office work and find the Order to be null and void for violating the separation of powers doctrine. The district court dismissed the case finding Representative Fugate lacked standing. Representative Fugate appealed and we retained the matter. We affirm the district court’s dismissal.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. KEITH
2025 OK 53
Case Number: SCBD-7939
Decided: 09/08/2025
ORDER OF INTERIM SUSPENSION
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, Record of Plea, Order of the Court — Initial Rule 8 Hearing — Amended Misdemeanor, Threatening A Violent Act, and Order of Deferred Sentence from the following matter in Tulsa County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Ryan Alexander Keith, Case No. CF-2024-1951. Respondent pled No Contest to the charge of Threatening A Violent Act. The court sentenced Respondent to a three-year deferred sentence.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. BROWN
2025 OK 52
Case Number: 7889
Decided: 09/08/2025
ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION
FROM OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION
PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Jessica Lyn Brown, OBA No. 33725, 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.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
2025 OK 51
Case Number: 123375
Decided: 08/20/2025
¶1 The Council on Judicial Complaints (“the Council”) initiated this case by delivering a report to the Chief Justice concerning the Council’s investigation of Special Judge Emily Mueller. The report contained Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommendation (“the Report”) that the Supreme Court impose a private reprimand and mandatory judicial education.
¶2 The Council plays an important role in protecting and preserving the integrity of the Oklahoma Judiciary. The Council is “an agency in the Executive Department” that independently investigates and evaluates complaints of judicial misconduct. 20 O.S.2011, §§ 1651 and 1652; Rule 3 of the Rules Governing Complaints on Judicial Misconduct (“the Rules”), 5 O.S. Ch.1, App. 4A.
…
¶13 We do not find that the Council’s recommendation of a private reprimand is a sufficient imposition of discipline in this matter. Like disciplinary proceedings pertaining to attorneys, “[t]he purposes of discipline are the protection of the public, . . . and the deterrence of similar misconduct.” State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, ¶ 34, 142 P.3d 410, 417. The Rules “are promulgated to preserve the integrity and public trust of the Judicial Branch of Government” not to punish the offending judge. Preface to the Rules, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 4A. To deter similar behavior in the future from Judge Mueller and reinforce the standards expected of all judges, we hereby Reprimand Judge Mueller and direct that this Reprimand be made public through the publication of this order.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. CONRADY
2025 OK 50
Case Number: SCBD-7863
Decided: 07/30/2025
¶1 Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent, James Albert Conrady, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA, requests an emergency interim suspension and related relief to prohibit Respondent from withdrawing funds from his IOLTA account until a complete audit may be performed, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.
¶2 The OBA submits Respondent’s conduct poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm to the public and warrants imposition of an emergency interim suspension. In addition to interim suspension, the OBA requests the Court issue an order prohibiting Respondent from withdrawing funds from his IOLTA account until an audit may be performed.
¶3 This Court ordered Respondent to show cause why an immediate interim suspension should not be entered and the related relief should not be granted. Respondent did not respond.
¶4 Upon consideration of the application for immediate interim suspension, the Court finds that Respondent’s conduct poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm, namely harm to his clients’ legal and financial interests.
¶5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Respondent, James Albert Conrady, is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.
¶DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT on July 30, 2025.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. NEWMAN
2025 OK 49
Case Number: SCBD-7903
Decided: 06/30/2025
The Oklahoma Bar Association (“OBA”), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (“RGDP”), forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Supplemental Information for After Former Conviction, Amended Information, Amended Supplemental Information for After Former Conviction, and Deferment from the following matter in McCurtain County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Ledger Newman, Case No. CF-2024-155. The Respondent pled No Contest to the charge of felony Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. The court sentenced Newman to a two-year deferred sentence on the felony.
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.”
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 Ledger Wade Newman is suspended from the practice of law pending further order from this Court. Ledger Wade Newman is directed to show cause, if any, no later than July 15, 2025, why this order of immediate interim suspension from the practice of law should be set aside. See Rule 7.3, RGDP. The OBA has until July 29, 2025, to respond.
…
ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
CORRECTING INTERIM SUPENSION ORDER OF JUNE 30, 2025
¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (“OBA”), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (“RGDP”), forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Supplemental Information for After Former Conviction, Amended Information, Amended Supplemental Information for After Former Conviction, and Deferment from the following matter in McCurtain County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Ledger Newman, Case No. CF-2024-155. The Respondent pled No Contest to the charge of felony Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. The court sentenced Newman to a two-year deferred sentence on the felony.
¶2 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.”
¶3 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 Ledger Wade Newman is suspended from the practice of law pending further order from this Court.
¶4 Under Rule 7.4, RGDP, this Court “may order the lawyer . . . 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 evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline.” The Respondent’s answer to this Court’s order to show cause why an interim suspension should not be entered sets forth argument and exhibits which bear on mitigation of the severity of discipline in a final order of discipline. These matters should be weighed by the Professional Responsibility Tribunal and a recommendation made to this Court. This matter is accordingly referred to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal to hold a hearing to make a recommendation on whether final discipline should be imposed and if so, a recommendation of the final discipline to be imposed.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025.
STROBLE v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION
2025 OK 48
Case Number: 120806
Decided: 07/01/2025
¶0 This appeal concerns the state income tax exemption under Oklahoma Administrative Code § 710:50-15-2(b)(1).
ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION IS AFFIRMED.
HODARA v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
2025 OK 47
Case Number: 122630
Decided: 06/24/2025
¶0 Appellant sued the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for alleged violations of the Open Records Act. The district court granted DOC’s motion to dismiss. Appellant appealed, and this Court ordered that it proceed as an accelerated appeal from a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.36, Rules of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. We affirm the district court’s decision.
RE: SUSPENSION OF CREDENTIAL OF REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETER
2025 OK 46
Decided: 06/23/2025
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority of conferred by 20 O.S., Chapter 23, §1702(A)(5)(h), and Chapter 23, Appendix III, Rule 3, the Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters voted to recommend to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the administrative suspension of the interpreter credential of Nathalie Perez, an Oklahoma Registered Courtroom Interpreter. Suspension is requested based on the interpreter’s failure to comply with the annual continuing education requirements or provide satisfactory proof that she is both unable to work and unable to complete continuing education requirements as set forth in 20 O.S., Chapter 23, §1704 and 20 O.S., Chapter 23, Appendix II, Rules 19-20.
Pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, Appendix II, Rule 20(e) and Appendix III, Rule 3, failure to satisfy the annual renewal requirements shall result in administrative suspension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the courtroom interpreter credential of Nathalie Perez is hereby suspended effective immediately.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 23RD day of JUNE, 2025.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF OKLAHOMA COURT REPORTERS
2025 OK 45
Decided: 06/23/2025
ORDER
¶1 The Supreme Court of Oklahoma acknowledges and appreciates the hard work of the certified shorthand court reporters currently serving the judiciary through stenographic methods. The Court acknowledges that the need in district courts exceeds the availability of certified shorthand reporters. The Court continues to pursue solutions to address the shortage.
¶2 Voice writer technology is approved for use in the majority of state courts as well as federal and military courts. Oklahoma is one of only three states that has not extended eligibility for certification to court reporters trained in the use of voice writer technology.
¶3 The Court is committed to increase the availability of court reporters in district courts by implementation of voice writer technology currently permitted by law. Further, to extend the eligibility for certification by the use of voice writer technology, and to be prepared in the event that the use voice writer technology becomes available by law, the Court finds that the governing board for certified shorthand reporters shall proceed to revise rules and testing procedures.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S. §§1501-1502 and 20 O.S. Ch. 20, App. 1, Rule 1, that the Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters shall take the following actions:
1. Review and propose revisions to existing rules to define standards and authorize testing and certification of court reporters using voice writer technology.
2. Plan and implement testing of candidates using voice writer technology.
3. Evaluate and recommend testing or certification opportunities offered by nationally recognized trade organizations for recognition in Oklahoma.
4. Provide for recognition by reciprocity of court reporters certified in voice writer technology by other states or federal authorities.
5. Facilitate and support the use of voice writer technology in Oklahoma courtrooms, subject to further guidance by the Court.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 23rd day of June, 2025.
BLACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM et al. v. DRUMMOND, WALTERS, et al.
2025 OK 44
Decided: 06/17/2025
¶0 The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified questions of state law to this Court pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2021, §§ 1601-1611.
…
CONCLUSION
¶26We answer the first three certified questions by determining that the term “requirement” in § 24-157(A)(1) pertains only to orientation requirements and does not apply to classes, courses, or curricular speech. We respectfully decline to answer the remaining questions certified to our Court, although we appreciate the work that the Western District invested in the certification order.
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN PART.
OG&E Co. v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION et al.
2025 OK 43
Decided: 06/17/2025
¶0 This appeal concerns the large load or one megawatt exception under the Retail Energy Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), 17 O.S.1971 § 158.25(E).
…
CONCLUSION
¶16 The connected load for initial full operation exceeded 1,000 kW at the Bison and Cimarex facilities. Therefore, the one megawatt exception applies, and OG&E may provide electrical service to both facilities located in CKenergy’s certified territory.
ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION REVERSED.
THE ICON AT NORMAN APTS, LP v. DOUGLAS WARR, CLEVELAND COUNTY ASSESSOR
2025 OK 42
Decided: 06/17/2025
ORDER
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF TAX REVIEW
¶0 Taxpayer, a limited partnership and the owner of a parcel of real property with apartment buildings, appeals the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review determining that a transfer of partnership interests was legally the same as title to the property being transferred, changed or conveyed to another person and thereby lifting the five percent (5%) limitation on increasing the fair cash value of the property for ad valorem taxation pursuant to Okla. Const. art. 10, §8B.
MATTER PREVIOUSLY RETAINED ON COURT’S OWN
MOTION; OKLAHOMA COURT OF TAX REVIEW ORDER VACATED
IN RE: AMENDMENT TO RULE 1.33 OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
2025 OK 41
Decided: 06/09/2025
ORDER
¶1 The Court hereby amends Rule 1.33, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. 2021, Ch. 15, App. 1, as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.
…
EXHIBIT A
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES
Rule 1.33. Form and Contents of Record
(a) Duties of Clerk to Assemble Record.
(1) Electronic Filing via OUCMS: Provided the Oklahoma Unified Case Management System (OUCMS) has been implemented in both the district and appellate court at the time the appeal is commenced, where any statute or court rule requires the district court clerk to prepare, certify, and transmit a record on appeal to the clerk of the appellate court, an Electronic Record (E-Record) transmitted through the OUCMS shall satisfy that requirement. The E-Record shall be a chronological compilation of all instruments on file which have been designated for inclusion in the record on appeal and all orders made in the trial court with respect to the content of the transcript and assessment of cost. The instruments in the electronic record, indexed and numbered consecutively, shall be certified under the seal of the clerk, using the Certification and Notice of Completion of Electronic Record form prescribed in Rule 1.301, Form No. 12A. The record will not be re-paginated. Although a number will be assigned to each document in the record on appeal, the original internal pagination of each document will remain unchanged. The E-Record shall be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court at the same time as the Certification and Notice of Completion of Electronic Record form No. 12A. All designations of record shall be included in the record on appeal. A copy of the appearance docket as of the date the record is certified shall be included in the record on appeal. For items which are not capable of being electronically transmitted, the court clerk must mail or deliver the non-electronic items to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, numbered consecutively, indexed and bound, and certified under the seal of the clerk.
(2) Conventional Means: Where the OUCMS is not implemented in both the district and appellate court at the time the appeal is commenced, after the designations of the record are made, the clerk shall promptly assemble in chronological sequence all of the instruments on file which have been designated for inclusion in the record on appeal and all orders made in the trial court with respect to the content of the transcript and assessment of cost. The instruments, numbered consecutively, indexed and bound, shall be certified under the seal of the clerk. All designations of record shall be included. A copy of the appearance docket shall be included in the record on appeal.
(b) Abbreviation of Record; Certified Copies of Instruments.
If the items of an account or the pages attached to the pleadings be voluminous, the trial court may order the record to be abbreviated by a narrative description of the omitted instrument, or by omitting such instrument entirely. The trial court may direct, for good cause shown, that certified copies be substituted either for original instruments (or their portions) or for trial exhibits.
(c) Duties of Court Reporter to File Transcripts and Assemble Exhibits, Copy of Transcript Upon Payment, and Duty of Appellant to Monitor Preparation.
The original transcript indexed and certified as correct together with two (2) certified copies and the exhibits in the case if any shall be filed in the trial court by the court reporter. Transcripts shall be completed and filed in the trial court as soon as practicable after they have been ordered, and in any event within sufficient time to permit the court clerk to file the Notice of Completion of Record within six (6) months after the filing of the judgment, decree or order from which the appeal was taken. In district courts where the OUCMS is implemented, the court reporter shall follow any rules and/or procedures for filing of electronic transcripts which have been prescribed by the Supreme Court.
The trial exhibits shall be indexed and incorporated into the transcript either by reference or physical attachment, as the court reporter may deem advisable. However, only
two dimensionalpaper exhibits no larger than 8 ½” x 14″ and removable media containing digital exhibits, including but not limited to usb drives (aka thumb drives or flash drives), DVDs and CDs, securely affixed to the transcript, exhibit binder, or document included in the record, may be transmitted to the Supreme Court with the record,except upon order of the Court. All digital exhibits shall be submitted as an original and one copy. Any deviation from this rule shall require an order from the Appellate court.
…
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS OF THE OBA
2025 OK 40
Case Number: SCBD-7906
Decided: 06/02/2025
On May 20, 2025, the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for the suspension of Oklahoma Bar Association members who failed to pay dues for the year 2025 as required by the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association (Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §1. The Board of Governors recommended that the members whose names appear on the Exhibit A attached to the Application be suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, as provided by the Rules, 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1, art. VIII, §2.
This Court finds that on or about April 15, 2025, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association notified by certified mail all members delinquent in the payment of dues and/or expense charges to the Oklahoma Bar Association for the year 2025. The Board of Governors have determined that the members set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, have not paid their dues and/or expense charges for the year as provided in the Rules.
This Court, having considered the Application of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, finds that each of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be suspended from the Oklahoma Bar Association membership and shall not practice law in the State of Oklahoma until reinstated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby suspended from membership in the Association and prohibited from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to pay membership dues for the year 2025 as required by the Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS OF THE OBA
2025 OK 39
Case Number: SCBD-7905
Decided: 06/02/2025
On May 20, 2025 the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed an Application for the suspension of Oklahoma Bar Association members who failed to comply with mandatory legal education requirements for the year 2024 as required by Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE Rules), 5 O.S. 2011, ch. 1, app. 1-B. The Board of Governors recommended the members, whose names appear on Exhibit A attached to the Application, be suspended from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and prohibited from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, as provided by Rule 6 of the MCLE Rules.
This Court finds that on March 17, 2025, the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Bar Association mailed, by certified mail, to all Oklahoma Bar Association members not in compliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the MCLE Rules, an Order to Show Cause within sixty days why the member’s membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association should not be suspended. The Board of Governors determined that the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A of its Application have not shown good cause why the member’s membership should not be suspended.
This Court, having considered the Application of the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association, finds that each of the Oklahoma Bar Association members named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, should be suspended from Oklahoma Bar Association membership and shall not practice law in this state until reinstated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the attorneys named on Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby suspended from membership in the Association and prohibited from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the MCLE Rules for the year 2024.
IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OBA
2025 OK 38
Case Number: SCBD-7679
Decided: 06/02/2025
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 2023.
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 10, 2024, for noncompliance with Rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2023. Based on its application, this Court finds that the Board of Governors determined at their May 16, 2025, 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 10, 2025. 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 10, 2025, for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF THE STRIKING OF NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE OBA
2025 OK 37
Case Number: SCBD-7678
Decided: 06/02/2025
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 2024.
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 10, 2024 for failure to pay their 2024 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 16, 2025, 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 10, 2025, 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 2024.
OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH V OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AUTHORITY
2025 OK 36
CASE NUMBER: 122524 AND 122775
DECIDED: 05/28/2025
¶0 The Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (OCCJA) filed a proceeding in the District Court for Oklahoma County, and sought a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief against the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The Oklahoma Department of Health (OSDH) filed in the Supreme Court an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition and declaratory relief against the OCCJA. The OSDH filed a motion to dismiss the District Court proceeding brought by the OCCJA. The District Court for Oklahoma County, Hon. C. Brent Dishman, District Judge, granted the motion to dismiss in part. The OCCJA appealed. The OSDH filed a motion to retain the appeal and consolidate the appeal with the original jurisdiction proceeding. The motion to retain was denied as moot due to a previous order of the Supreme Court retaining the appeal. The motion to consolidate the two proceedings was previously denied. We adjudicate No. 122,524 and No. 122,775 by a single opinion. We hold: The OSDH’s application to assume original jurisdiction in No. 122,524 is denied; The OCCJA’s petition in error in No. 122,775 is recast into an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writ of prohibition; The Court assumes original jurisdiction in No. 122,775 on a single issue and concludes the OSDH has authority to perform unannounced jail inspections; We conclude the interlocutory order of the District Court is not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion and deny the OCCJA’s petition for a writ of prohibition.
FLINTCO, LLC V TOTAL INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC. ET AL.
2025 OK 35
CASE NUMBER: 120110
DECIDED: 05/28/2025
¶0 Contractor in a large construction project brought action against flooring subcontractor and its surety, arguing that the subcontractor breached the subcontract and that the surety was liable under the AIA-A311 performance bond. After a bench trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the contractor and against the subcontractor and surety. The surety appealed, arguing that the contractor failed to satisfy the conditions of the performance bond requiring a declaration of default and reasonable notice to the surety before the contractor assumed control of the subcontractor’s flooring work. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment. This Court granted Certiorari. We hold that the performance bond’s notice requirement constituted a mandatory condition precedent, and the contractor’s failure to provide timely notice to the surety so it could exercise its performance options under the bond relieved the surety from liability.
BAILEY V STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. SERVICE OKLAHOMA
2025 OK 34
CASE NUMBER: 122782
DECIDED: 05/28/2025
¶0 Appellant’s driver’s license was revoked after a blood test was excluded from evidence. He argues that Service Oklahoma lacked statutory authority to mail the revocation notice by regular mail, that revocation is invalid absent a certificate or affidavit of mailing even where the licensee received and acted upon the notice, and that revocation cannot be sustained without a valid test result when the driver did not refuse testing. This Court granted review to resolve each of these questions.
In Re: Amendment to the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law
2025 OK 33
Case Number: SCBD-7744
Decided: 05/12/2025
¶1 This matter is before the Court upon an Application for Order Amending RULE TWO, RULE FOUR, RULE SIX, RULE SEVEN, RULE NINE and RULE TEN to 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 RULE TWO, RULE SIX and RULE SEVEN are hereby amended as set out in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
REINSTATEMENT OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2025 OK 32
Decided: 05/12/2025
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the following interpreters:
Maria Argueta
Edgar Escalante
Francisca Padilla
Carol Simmons
Angel Vides
be reinstated as they have complied with the continuing education requirements for 2024 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2025 and have paid all applicable fees.
REVOCATION OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2025 OK 31
Decided: 05/12/2025
ORDER
This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Certified and Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2024 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2025. See 2025 OK 18 (SCAD 2025-14, dated March 10, 2025).
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 Courtroom Interpreters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective May 12, 2025.
OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v BOYD
2025 OK 30
Decided: 04/29/2025
¶0 Pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, the Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association transmitted documentation to this Court detailing the Respondent’s, Mosemarie Dora Boyd, 2023 suspension of six months from the practice of law in Arkansas. After review of the record, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the Arkansas ruling. We hold, Mosemarie Dora Boyd committed certain acts of professional misconduct related to a guardianship action she filed in Arkansas. These acts also violate certain rules of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch.1, App. 3-A. We suspend her license to practice law for six months commencing on September 27, 2024. No costs have been assessed.
LUNN v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. et al.
2025 OK 29
Decided: 04/29/2025
¶0 Appellant appeals from a post-judgment order of the district court denying attorney’s fees. Appellant sought attorney’s fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute after a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant for less than its offer of judgment to Appellees. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding Appellant’s offer of judgment was invalid because it was not apportioned between Appellees. This Court granted certiorari to decide an issue of first impression.
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
RE: Reinstatement of Certificates of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2025 OK 28
Decided: 04/28/2025
ORDER
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the certificate of each of the Oklahoma Certified Shorthand Reporters named below be reinstated as they have complied with the continuing education requirements for 2024 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2025 and have paid all applicable fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. l, Rules 20 and 23, the certificates of the following shorthand reporters are reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court:
| Name | CSR # | Effective Date of Reinstatement |
| Dennis Brown | CSR #139 | March 4, 2025 |
| Lisa Morgan | CSR #1658 | March 10, 2025 |
| Leslie Ruiz | CSR #1854 | March 19, 2025 |
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 28TH day of APRIL, 2025.
RE: Revocation of Certificates of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2025 OK 27
Decided: 04/28/2025
ORDER
On March 3, 2025, this Court suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2024 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2025. See 2025 OK 14(SCAD 2025-12).
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters has advised that the court reporters listed below continue to be delinquent in complying with the continuing education and/or annual certificate renewal requirements, and the Board has recommended to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma the revocation of the certificate of each of these reporters, effective April 15, 2025, pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. I, Rules 20 and 23.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the certificate of each of the certified shorthand reporters named below is hereby revoked effective April 28, 2025.
Francine Dais CSR #2000
Joni Humphries CSR #1236
Lorna Igert CSR #844
Sherry Jones CSR #1345
Carrie Trout CSR #159
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 28TH day of APRIL, 2025.
COUCH v STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2025 OK 26
Case Number: 121845
Decided: 04/22/2025
¶0 Appellant’s driver’s license revocation was sustained by the district court after he agreed to a breath test, which was later deemed invalid. Couch appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed the district court’s decision. We granted certiorari to resolve a division among the Court of Civil Appeals Divisions III and IV regarding the statutory meaning of the “other competent evidence” issue.
IN THE MATTER OF FB, BHUIYAN v STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK 25
Case Number: 121659
Decided: 04/15/2025
New Memorandum Opinion issued 7/1/2025 in connection with case
¶0 Mother’s parental rights were terminated after a nonjury trial at which she failed to appear. Mother appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed. We granted certiorari, vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and remand to the trial court.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF LUCERO
2025 OK 24
Case Number: SCBD-7714
Decided: 04/07/2025
ORDER
¶1 On February 10, 2020, the petitioner, Shannon Otteson Lucero, elected to change her status with the Oklahoma Bar Association from Active Member to Retired Member. 1 On August 2, 2024, Lucero petitioned this Court for reinstatement, seeking to return as an Active Member of the OBA.
¶2 A hearing was held before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal on October 30, 2024. After taking the testimony of witnesses and reviewing the submission of joint exhibits, the panel recommended that Lucero be reinstated to Active Member status. Upon consideration of the matter, we find:
1) The attorney has met all the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement in the Oklahoma Bar Association as set out in Rules 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch.1, app. 1-A. 2
2) The attorney has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that she has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma or any other state.
3) The attorney has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that she possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
4) The attorney has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that she possesses the good moral character which would entitle her to be reinstated to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
¶3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition of Shannon Otteson Lucero for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association should be granted.
MILLS vs J-M MFG. CO., INC. et al
2025 OK 23
Case Number: 121781
Decided: 04/08/2025
¶0 Charter Oak Production Co., LLC paid to settle a property damage claim brought by landowners after a pipeline installed on its easement ruptured. Charter Oak then sought indemnity from JM Eagle, Inc., and Rainmaker Sales, Inc., who supplied the pipe Charter Oak alleges was defective. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JM Eagle and Rainmaker, finding that Charter Oak lacked the legal relationship required to assert an indemnity claim and that the claim was barred by the economic loss rule. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, reversed. We granted certiorari to address whether a party may seek indemnity without an independent legal relationship and whether the economic loss rule bars indemnity for damage to third-party property.
IN RE: N.A.; STATE OF OKLAHOMA vs MALDONADO et al
2025 OK 22
Case Number: 122331 (cons w/ 122399)
Decided: 04/08/2025
¶0 This appeal concerns whether an Oklahoma district court has jurisdiction over a juvenile deprived proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 43 O.S.2024, §§ 551-101 to 551-402.
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.
…
KANE, J.:
¶1 This case involves a family that lived on both sides of the Oklahoma-Kansas border and in Mexico. Respondents/Appellants Cynthia Maldonado and Martha Amaro appeal from the trial court’s order determining that, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), 43 O.S.2024, §§ 551-101 to 551-402, Oklahoma has jurisdiction over this juvenile deprived proceeding and the trial court’s order adjudicating their two minor children deprived. We affirm the trial court’s finding that minor child L.A. had resided in Oklahoma for six months preceding the commencement of the deprived proceeding, and, therefore, Oklahoma was the child’s home state. We also affirm the trial court’s order adjudicating the Children deprived as to Maldonado.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF THE OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA STATUTES
2025 OK 21
Decided: 04/01/2025
Upon the request of the Office of the Secretary of State for the Court’s certification of the electronic publication of the annual compilation, codification, and annotations of the Oklahoma Statutes, beginning with all laws of a general and permanent nature in effect as of December 31, 2020, we hereby order that the attached fully executed Certificate be forwarded to West Publishing Corporation for inclusion in the electronic publication of the Oklahoma Statutes at Official Oklahoma Statutes (Unannotated): https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc/Index?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29, and Oklahoma Historical Statutes (Unannotated): https://govt.westlaw.com/okhs/Index. A copy of this order and the attached Certificate shall be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of State.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. SHIELDS
2025 OK 20
Case Number: SCBD-7480
Decided: 03/25/2025
¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant, filed a complaint against Isaac Seth Brantley Shields, Respondent, alleging two counts of misconduct based on Respondent observing jury deliberations. Upon de novo review, we find Respondent violated title 21, section 588 of the Oklahoma Statutes and committed (1) a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s trustworthiness, (2) conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation, (3) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and (4) actions contrary to prescribed standards of conduct for a lawyer which brought discredit upon the legal profession.
SANDERS v. TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS
2025 OK 19
Case Number: 121589
¶0 Plaintiff filed a petition in the District Court for Creek County and alleged a wrongful death caused by defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the petition and the Honorable Douglas W. Golden, District Judge, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and also granted leave for plaintiff to amend the petition. Plaintiff did not amend and appealed the trial court’s order granting dismissal and leave to amend. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the District Court, released its opinion for publication, and defendant filed a petition for certiorari to review the appellate court. We granted certiorari. We hold: Plaintiff appealed an interlocutory order, created a premature appeal, and appellate jurisdiction is absent; The Court vacates the opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals and withdraws it from publication; The Court recasts plaintiff’s petition in error to an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for prohibition; The Governmental Tort Claims Act makes licensed medical professionals to be employees of this state, regardless of the place in this state where duties as employees are performed, when the licensed medical professionals are under contract, including when under contract as an independent contractor, with city, county, or state entities and providing medical care to inmates or detainees in the custody or control of law enforcement agencies; The Court assumes original jurisdiction and denies the petition for writ of prohibition.
RE SUSPENSION OF CREDENTIALS OF CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS
2025 OK 18
Decided: 03/10/2025
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 2025.
POPPINGA v. WALLACE
2025 OK 17
Case Number: 121217
Decided: 03/04/2025
¶0 Mother seeks to vacate a default judgment entered against her which determined the paternity of her child and granted custody thereof to Father. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the service of summons by publication, claiming defects therein and that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to vacate. We retained the matter and now reverse.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
…
¶1 This matter originated as a paternity proceeding filed by Father, Grant Phillip Poppinga. Father filed a petition of paternity seeking a determination of parentage, custody, visitation, and support for the minor daughter (Child) he shares with Arrianna Monet Wallace, Mother. Father attempted service of the petition by publication and thereafter filed a motion for default judgment when Mother failed to appear. The district court granted Father’s requested default judgment. When Mother learned of the judgment against her, she sought to have it vacated claiming errors in the service by publication as well as in the award of default judgment. The district court denied Mother’s request and she appealed. We retained the matter to address whether Father’s service by publication was sufficient and whether the district court erred in failing to grant Mother’s motion to vacate the default judgment. We find error in both the service by publication and in the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF McTEER
2025 OK 16
Case Number: SCBD-7575
Decided: 03/04/2025
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR RULE 11 REINSTATEMENT
¶0 Petitioner, Amy Lynn McTeer, filed a petition for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Both the Professional Responsibility Tribunal and the OBA recommended that Petitioner’s reinstatement be denied. After a de novo review, Petitioner’s application for reinstatement is denied.
OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORP. COMMISSION
2025 OK 15
Case Number: 118857
Decided: 03/04/2025
¶0 In the spring of 2018, People’s Electric Cooperative, Inc., (People’s) and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) submitted competing bids to provide retail electric service to the Tall Oak Woodford Cryo Plant (Tall Oak or Plant) in Coal County, Oklahoma. The Plant is located in the certified territory of People’s, which has exclusive rights to provide electricity to customers in the area pursuant to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E’s successful proposal relied on the Large Load exception to RESCTA, which permits a supplier “extending its service” into another supplier’s certified territory for qualifying large-load customers. To provide service to the Plant, OG&E did not extend its own retail distribution lines, but tapped into third-party transmission facilities. Upon People’s application, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission enjoined OG&E from serving the Plant, finding that OG&E was not “extending its service” in a manner authorized by RESCTA. We retained OG&E’s appeal. We hold that Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires a limited review of the Commission’s order, and we affirm the Commission’s determination that a retail electric supplier may not use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier’s certified territory under the Large Load exception of RESCTA.
RE SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
2025 OK 14
Decided: 03/03/2025
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 renewal requirements for 2025.
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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the certificate of each of the court reporters named on the attached Exhibit is hereby suspended effective March 3, 2025.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 3rd day of MARCH, 2025.
JAI HOSPITALITY v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE CO.
2025 OK 13
Case Number: 121294
Decided: 02/25/2025
¶0 Insured brought an action against the Insurer alleging the Insurer’s denial of its claim for damages from a fire loss was in bad faith. Both parties sought summary relief. The Honorable Leah Edwards, District Judge of Garvin County, on a motion to reconsider the denial of Insurer’s motion for summary judgment, granted Insurer’s motion finding that Insurer made a timely, legally effective offer to renew the insurance policy, and was not required to send its offer directly to the first named insured pursuant to the insurance contract and Oklahoma law, and the insured failed to accept Insurer’s offer to renew, and no insurance contract existed at the time of the fire loss. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We hold that the trial court erred in (1) finding that Insurer was not required to send its renewal offer directly to the first Named Insured; and (2) in failing to decide issues properly raised by Insured. We further hold that the terms of the insurance contract and 36 O.S. § 3639 (E) required Insurer to provide written notice of a renewal offer with premium increase directly to the first Named Insured; where such notice is not mailed or delivered in accordance with the contract and Section 3639 (E), “the premium, deductible, limits and coverage in effect prior to the changes will remain in effect” as outlined in the policy.
CONNER v. STATE
2025 OK 12
Case Number: 122216
Decided: 02/25/2025
¶0 This matter concerns the review of a certified interlocutory order denying the Defendant/Petitioner’s, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC), motion to dismiss. The underlying cause of action concerns allegations of employment discrimination made by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Claudia C. Conner, against the OESC. The motion to dismiss was based upon Conner’s alleged failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The trial court denied the motion because it found there existed material conflicts between the GTCA and the anti-discrimination statutes. We hold there are no material or irreconcilable conflicts between the two acts pertaining to the dispositive issue concerning the notice provisions. We remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. FRYAR
2025 OK 11
Case Number: SCBD-7713; Cons. w/7723
Decided: 02/10/2025
¶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 December 10, 2024, seeking to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her 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.
…
¶2 IT IS ORDERED that Complainant’s application for an Order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings of Respondent, Andrea Beth Bennett, A/K/A Andrea Beth Fryar, is granted, Respondent’s resignation is accepted and approved, and her right to practice law is relinquished.
¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s name, Andrea Beth Bennett, A/K/A Andrea Beth Fryar, be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys and that she may not apply for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to the 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.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.D.B.
2025 OK 10
Case Number: 121075
Decided: 02/11/2025
¶0 This appeal originates from a private guardianship over two Indian children. After years of guardianship proceedings, the Cherokee Nation requested a transfer to tribal court pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the State of Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation Regarding Jurisdiction over Indian Children within the Nation’s Reservation. The district court granted the motion to transfer. Guardians appealed and we granted the Cherokee Nation’s motion to retain.
DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO
2025 OK 9
Case Number: 120617
Decided: 02/04/2025
¶0 When Plaintiff/Appellee Kelly Patrick Donaldson was convicted of second degree rape and became subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) in 2005, SORA did not prohibit sex offenders from residing near parks. The Oklahoma Legislature subsequently amended 57 O.S., § 590 to prohibit sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a city park. Defendant/Appellant City of El Reno appeals from the trial court’s entry of a declaratory judgment that applying the current residency restrictions in 57 O.S.Supp.2019, § 590(A) to Donaldson violates the ex post facto clause of the federal and state constitutions and that the version of SORA in effect on the date of his conviction applies. We hold that the residency restrictions do not amount to punishment; therefore, applying the current residency restrictions to Donaldson does not violate the ex post facto clause.
ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED
AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF N.J.B.
2025 OK 8
Case Number: 120729
Decided: 01/28/2025
¶0 The trial court approved an adoption without consent based on mother’s failure to comply with an order for child support. A division of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that determination, finding federal stimulus monies retained by father should not have been considered when evaluating mother’s compliance or non-compliance with the child support order. We granted certiorari and now conclude the trial court’s refusal to consider economic stimulus payments, which were received by Father and credited by him to Mother’s child support debt, was an abuse of discretion. Additionally, we find the evidence did not support a finding mother had willfully failed, refused, or neglected to pay child support in substantial compliance with a court order for twelve consecutive months out of the fourteen preceding the filing of the adoption petition.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL
APPEALS DECISION VACATED; TRIAL COURT
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
CUMMINGS v. SASNETT
2025 OK 7
Case Number: 120418
Decided: 01/22/2025
¶0 Years after his divorce was final, a firefighter retired and elected to participate in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Plan B program. The firefighter’s former spouse sought to enforce the parties’ divorce decree, requiring the firefighter to pay her a portion of his Plan B benefits. The district court ruled in favor of the former spouse and ordered the firefighter to pay his former spouse a portion of the funds in the Plan B account. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that when a vested firefighter selects the Plan B option post-divorce and the divorce decree does not specify the allocation of these funds, the Plan B account is divisible marital property to the extent that any funds in the account are attributable to the marital years.
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
JOLLEY v. McCLAIN
2025 OK 6
Case Number: 122114
Decided: 01/22/2025
¶0 Petitioner, Christopher Charles Jolley (Jolley), seeks extraordinary relief from this Court to vacate Judge Laura McClain’s order quashing a subpoena duces tecum. Jolley sent the subpoena to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) expert property appraiser in an attempt to discover how much income the appraiser has received as an expert witness in past. We assumed original jurisdiction, Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4, and now hold that issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is not among the methods prescribed by the Oklahoma Discovery Code by which an expert witness’s financial information may be discovered.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED;
WRIT OF PROHIBITION DENIED
ROWAN v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.
2025 OK 5
Case Number: 121750
Decided: 01/22/2025
¶0 Following a jury verdict and monetary award to Appellants, Appellants sought attorney fees and costs under Title 36, Section 3629(B). The district court denied the request and denied Appellants’ motion to reconsider. We retained Appellant’s appeal, reverse the district court, and remand.
APPEAL RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED;
CASE REMANDED TO OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
CHEROKEE NATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
2025 OK 4
Case Number: 122108
Decided: 01/22/2025
¶0 The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified a question of state law to the Court pursuant to the revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2011 §§ 1601-1611.
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED
…
¶1 The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified the following question of state law to this Court under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. §§ 1601-1611.
May the Attorney General of Oklahoma, under Title 74, Section 18 of the Oklahoma Statutes, “take and assume control” of the “defense of the state’s interests,” Okla. Stat. tit 74 § 18b(A)(3), in the instant case before this Court — in which the Governor of Oklahoma is named as a defendant in his official capacity for his role in entering into certain tribal-gaming contracts on behalf of the State of Oklahoma — over the objection of the Governor, who is vested with “Supreme executive power” under Article VI, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and when the Governor has already exercised his authority under Title 74, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Statutes to “employ counsel to protect the rights or interests of the state,” Okla. Stat. tit 74 § 6?
¶2 The certified question is answered in the negative.
KITE v. CULBERTSON
2025 OK 3
Case Number: 121418
Decided: 01/14/2025
¶0 After the appellee, Heather Kite, and the appellant, Jessica Culbertson got into a physical altercation, Kite sought a Victim’s Protection Order (VPO) against Culbertson, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. Culbertson was the live-in girlfriend of the father of Kite’s two children with whom Kite shares joint custody. The trial court granted a VPO, prohibiting Culbertson from contact with Kite or her children for five years. Culbertson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in issuing the VPO. We retained the cause to review whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the VPO. We hold that it did not.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF G.E.M.S.
2025 OK 2
Case Number: 121688
Decided: 01/14/2025
¶0 A minor child’s mother appealed the district court’s decision that denied the mother’s motion to terminate a guardianship order of the minor child. This Court retained the appeal. We affirm the district court’s decision. The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the best interest of the child outweighed the substantial completion of the mother’s guardianship requirements to terminate the guardianship and regain custody of the minor child.
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JONES
2025 OK 1
Case Number: 7819
Decided: 01/13/2025
ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION
PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Logan Michael Jones 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.