Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decisions
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GEORGE
2022 OK 34, SCBD-7085
Decided 04/12/2022
¶0 Respondent is a senior attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and a member in good standing of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent based on professional discipline he received in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Respondent received a private reprimand for a letter he had written to the judges of the Tenth Circuit expressing displeasure with a ruling before that Court. The Bar recommended Respondent receive an equal or lesser discipline than that imposed by the Tenth Circuit. After a de novo review, this Court holds that no further discipline is warranted herein.
STATE ex rel. STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS v. IDLEMAN
2022 OK 33, 119742
Decided 04/12/2022
¶0 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Board) filed a formal complaint and recommendation of discipline against the Respondent, Kimberly Idleman (Idleman), pursuant to 20 O.S.2021 § 1502 (A)(4) and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, (the Rules) 20 O.S.2021, ch. 20, app. 2. The formal complaint against Respondent was based on referrals by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) arising out of her work as a certified shorthand reporter, including non-completion of transcripts and significant delays in the completion of transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings in the District Court of Tillman County and the District Court of Jackson County, respectively, as well as allegations that she conducted herself in an unreliable and unprofessional manner. Despite proper service of the formal complaint and notice of the disciplinary hearing before the Board, Respondent did not respond to the formal complaint or appear at the hearing. The Board recommended the revocation of Respondent’s license. Upon a de novo review, we hold the failure of this court reporter to complete and to timely and accurately complete transcripts in multiple criminal proceedings, and the resulting ramifications therefrom, warrants license revocation.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INCOME TAX PROTEST OF RAYTHEON COMPANY
2022 OK 32, 116358
Decided 04/05/2022
¶ 0 Corporate taxpayer’s 2012 income tax return was due on March 15, 2013. Taxpayer filed its return on September 27, 2013, after securing a statutorily authorized extension of the deadline. Taxpayer later discovered that the return overstated the company’s annual income based upon the inadvertent inclusion of Arizona property sales. The taxpayer filed an amended 2012 return on September 27, 2016, claiming a refund of $321,444.00. The Oklahoma Tax Commission denied the refund claim, reasoning taxpayer submitted its demand more than three years after paying the taxes. An administrative law judge found the claimed refund was time barred under 68 O.S.2011, § 2373 , and the Commissioners affirmed this finding. Taxpayer appealed and we retained the matter. We now reverse, finding the taxpayer timely brought the claim for refund, having paid taxes to the Oklahoma Tax Commission upon filing its amended original return with a proper extension.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OKLAHOMA CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
2022 OK 31, 119868
Decided 04/05/2022
¶ 0 Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority seeks to enter into a federal loan agreement and notes to finance rural highway improvement projects. In accordance with 73 O.S.2021, ch. 6, § 350.1 and 20 O.S.2021, ch. 1, § 14.1 , the OCIA filed an application in this Court seeking approval of the transaction. No objections were filed. This Court accepted original jurisdiction to determine the validity of the proposed notes.
IN RE: STATE QUESTION No. 820 INITIATIVE PETITION No. 434
2022 OK 30, 120170
Decided 03/28/2022
¶1 Original jurisdiction is assumed. Okla. Const. art. VII, § 4; 34 O.S.2021, § 8 , https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc (follow hyperlink titled “General Provisions”); In re Initiative Petition No. 409, State Question No. 785 , 2016 OK 51 , ¶ 2, 376 P.3d 250 , 252. Petitioner Jed Green challenges the legal sufficiency of State Question No. 820, Initiative Petition No. 434. Upon review, we hold that State Question No. 820 is constitutionally sufficient and its gist sufficiently informs signers of its intentions for the initiative petition to be submitted to the people of Oklahoma.