Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 2026

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OBA, v. KELLY JOHN BARLEAN
2026 OK 30
Case Number: SCBD-7652
Decided: 04/28/2026

¶0 Complainant, the State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), brought disciplinary proceedings against Respondent based on (a)convictions in two criminal cases; (b)a judicial grievance; (c) two counts of other professional misconduct filed by the OBA. We find clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s conduct requires disbarment. We order Respondent to pay costs of $2,532.10 within ninety days from the date of this Opinion.

RE: Revocation of Certificates of Certified Shorthand Reporters
2026 OK 29
Decided: 04/27/2026

On March 9, 2026, this Court suspended the certificates of several certified shorthand reporters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2025 and/or with the annual certificate renewal requirements for 2026. See 2026 OK 15 (SCAD-2026-12).

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, 2026, pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 20, App. I, Rules 20 and 23.

RE: Revocation of Credentials of Registered Courtroom Interpreters
2026 OK 28
Decided: 04/27/2026

ORDER

This Court previously suspended the credentials of several Registered Courtroom Interpreters for failure to comply with the continuing education requirements for calendar year 2025 and/or with the annual credential renewal requirements for 2026. See 2026 OK 14(SCAD 2026-11, dated March 9, 2026).

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 credentials as required by the rules, and the Board has recommended to this Court the revocation of the credential of each of these interpreters.

This Court hereby approves the Board’s recommendation of revocation of each of the Registered Courtroom Interpreters named below, and pursuant to the applicable rules such revocation shall be effective April 27, 2026.

BEAN v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, et al.
2026 OK 27
Case Number: 122395
Decided: 04/28/2026

¶0 A patient, who had a contrast infiltration from an IV placed in her left hand in preparation for a CT scan, brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital. The district court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the patient could not prove her claim because the patient’s expert, a registered nurse, was not qualified to testify as to the hospital physician’s standard of care and could not prove that any alleged negligence on the part of hospital employees caused any injury. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, concluding that a question of fact existed as to whether the hospital non-physician employees were negligent and caused the patient’s injury. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that the patient failed to prove her claim because she presented no qualified expert to testify as to the physician standard of care and to establish causation between the hospital’s alleged negligent acts and the patient’s injury.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. HOPKINS
2026 OK 26
Case Number: SCBD-8100
Decided: 04/27/2026

¶1 On March 6, 2026, the OBA filed its verified complaint and application for emergency interim suspension against Respondent Rob B. Hopkins, pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.2A, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension and related relief to preserve and recover funds, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶2 In support, the OBA reports that eight (8) grievances are currently pending against Respondent in the General Counsel’s office. The grievances posit that Respondent has repeatedly engaged in volatile and aggressive behavior toward the courts and opposing counsel, resulting in Respondent being held in direct contempt of court twice. Additionally, two of the grievances allege Respondent’s behavior have made cases difficult to litigate, to the detriment of all parties. The OBA posits it has received sufficient evidence demonstrating Respondent has violated Rules 1.3, 3.2, 3.3(a), 3.4(d), 3.5(d), 4.1(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and that his conduct poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm. This Court ordered Respondent to show cause why an emergency interim suspension should not be entered. Respondent failed to file a response.

¶3 Upon consideration of the verified complaint and application for emergency interim suspension, the Court finds that the allegations presented by the OBA are sufficient to support an emergency interim suspension.

¶4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Respondent Rob B. Hopkins, is hereby suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶5 FURTHERMORE, Respondent is ordered to give written notice by certified mail within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to his clients of his inability to represent them and the necessity to retain new counsel. If Respondent is a member of or associated with a law firm or professional corporation, such notice shall be given to all clients of the firm or professional corporation, which have legal business then pending with respect to which Respondent has substantial responsibility. Respondent shall file a formal withdrawal as counsel in all cases pending in any tribunal. Respondent must file, within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, an affidavit with the Commission and the Clerk of the Supreme Court stating that he has complied with this Order, together with a list of the clients so notified and a list of all other State and Federal courts and administrative agencies before which Respondent is admitted to practice. Proof of substantial compliance by Respondent with this Order shall be a condition precedent for reinstatement.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OBA v. FINN
2026 OK 25
Case Number: SCBD-8078
Decided: 04/27/2026

The Oklahoma Bar Association (“OBA”), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (“RGDP”), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Sentencing After Jury Trial Summary of Facts, and Judgment and Sentence from the following matter in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Larry E. Finn, Case No. CF-2024-197. After a four-day jury trial, Respondent was found guilty of Felony Child Abuse in violation of 21 O.S. § 843.5 and ordered to pay $5,000.00 and register as violent offender pursuant to the Mary Rippy Violent Crime Offenders Act, 57 O.S. § 597.

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 Larry E. Finn is immediately suspended from the practice of law pending further order from this Court.

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 conduct or by way of mitigating the discipline to be imposed upon him, submit a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline.” Rule 7.4, RGDP. Pursuant to Rule 7.4, Larry E. Finn has until May 11, 2026, to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed, to request a hearing, or to file a brief and any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The OBA has until May 25, 2026, to respond.

GANN v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.
2026 OK 24
Case Number: 122861
Decided: 04/21/2026

¶0 The Oklahoma Corporation Commission entered a final order in a public utility rate proceeding. State Representative Tom Gann, pro se, appealed that final order (Final Order). Under Okla. Const. art. IX, § 20, this Court retained the appeal as the Court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction. We conclude that the issues Gann raises in this appeal were not raised and exhausted before the Corporation Commission. The Final Order of the Corporation Commission is affirmed.

BETTS V. TOYOTA, et al.
2026 OK 22
Case Number: 122040
Decided: 04/14/2026

ON CERTIORARI FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II

¶0 Appellants sued a car manufacturer for products liability. The district court granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Texas’s statute of repose barred Appellants’ claim. Appellants appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding Texas law did not apply. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Texas has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties involved, and Texas’s statute of repose bars Appellants’ claim.

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED;
DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

IN RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 15 OF THE RULES FOR DISTRICT COURTS OF OKLAHOMA, 12 O.S. 2025, CH. 2, APP.
2026 OK 21
Decided: 04/06/2026

¶1 Pursuant to the general administrative authority that Article VII, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests in this Court over all courts of this State except the Court on the Judiciary and the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, as well as this Court’s statutory authority pursuant to 12 O.S.2025, § 74 to make rules applicable to the district courts for carrying into effect the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Oklahoma, the Court hereby adopts the attached amendment to Rule 15 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S.2025, ch. 2, app.

¶2 A clean copy of the amended rule is attached as “Exhibit A,” and a red-lined copy is attached as “Exhibit B.”

…
CORRECTION ORDER

¶1 The wrong versions of “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” were inadvertently attached to the previous Order amending Rule 15 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma. Those exhibits are hereby stricken, and the corrected versions attached hereto are substituted in their place, to become effective June 1, 2026.

DON KEENAN V. TODD RUSS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2026 OK 20
Case Number: 122686
Decided: 04/07/2026

¶0 Plaintiff filed suit in in the District Court and alleged the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (74 O.S. §§ 12001, et seq.) violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. Plaintiff requested an injunction to prevent the State Treasurer from following the Act. The Honorable Sheila D. Stinson, District Judge, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims, and made the trial court’s previous temporary injunction a permanent injunction The State Treasurer appealed and the Treasurer’s motion to retain the appeal in the Supreme Court was granted. The Court holds: (1) Appellee’s death after submission of the appellate cause to the Court for appellate adjudication does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear Treasurer’s appeal; and (2) The Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (74 O.S. §§ 12001, et seq.) violates Okla. Const. Art. XXIII, §12, when applied to the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System.

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
2026 OK 19
Decided: 03/23/2026

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in Oklahoma courts is expected.

The Supreme Court does not discourage the use of AI in Oklahoma courts, provided its use complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing. All persons filing documents in Oklahoma courts are responsible for the content and accuracy of the documents.

RE: Reinstatement of Credentials of Registered Courtroom Interpreters
2026 OK 18
Decided: 03/23/2026

ORDER

The Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters recommended to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that the credential of the following interpreter:
Marshall Dies
be reinstated as he has complied with the continuing education requirements for 2025 and annual certificate renewal requirements for 2026 and has paid all applicable fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 20 O.S., Chapter 23, App. 1, Rules 18 and 20, the credential of the above listed Interpreter be reinstated from the suspension earlier imposed by this Court:

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE this 23rd day of March, 2026.

In re: AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1.6 OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULES, 12 O.S. 2025, CH. 15, APP. 1
2026 OK 17
Decided: 03/23/2026

ORDER
¶1 Pursuant to the general administrative authority that Article VII, Section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests in this Court, as well as this Court’s statutory authority pursuant to 12 O.S.2025, § 74 to revise its general rules and to make such amendments as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Oklahoma, the Court hereby adopts the attached amendment to Rule 1.6 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S.2025, ch. 15, app. 1.

…

“EXHIBIT A”

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules
Title 12, Chapter 15, App. 1
Rule 1.6 Motions

(a) Motion and Response.

All motions shall contain a brief statement of relevant facts, the relief requested, and the applicable law. No separate brief in support of a motion will be accepted for filing. The motion and response shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. The motion and response shall be duplicated on letter-size 8-1/2″ x 11″ white paper, printed or typed in clear type not less than 12-point font size, with single-spaced lines of quoted matter and double-spaced lines of unquoted matter. Footnotes shall also be in clear type no less than 11-point font size, with single-spaced lines. An original and ten copies of the motion and response shall be filed.