Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2025
Decisions
IN THE MATTER OF FB, BHUIYAN v STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2025 OK 25
Case Number: 121659
Decided: 04/15/2025
¶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.