Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
NOMAC DRILLING LLC v. Mowdy
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-05-08 · cited 12×
This case involves a workers' compensation claim filed by Kelly Mowdy against his employer Nomac Drilling LLC for a suspected spider bite at employer-provided housing in Louisiana that developed into a MRSA infection, requiring antibiotics, surgery, and time off work. The Workers' Compensation Court awarded temporary total disability benefits after finding the injury arose out of employment, a decision upheld by a three-judge panel but vacated by the Court of Civil Appeals. On certiorari review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sustained the award, ruling that the claimant's expert medical report met the standards for expert testimony because it referenced the prior diagnosis, included relevant medical history, and clearly connected the injury to employment-related activities.
labor & employment
Triad Transport, Inc. v. Wynne
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-04-10 · cited 7×
This case concerned a truck driver's claim for workers' compensation benefits in Oklahoma after suffering a work-related injury in Colorado. The sole issue was whether the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court had jurisdiction over the claim, which turned on whether the employment contract had been formed within the state. The court held that jurisdiction existed because the worker's final assent to the employer's offer of employment occurred during orientation in McAlester, Oklahoma. Under the governing statute, Oklahoma workers' compensation law applies to out-of-state injuries when the contract of employment was made in Oklahoma. The court rejected arguments that earlier communications or acts outside the state constituted acceptance, finding instead that orientation activities such as paperwork and testing represented the point of final assent.
labor & employmentprocedure
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy Kb
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-11-01 · cited 4×
This case involved a dispute over whether Baby Boy K.B. could be adopted by M.B. and V.B. without the consent of his biological father, T.R., after the child's mother and her husband relinquished their rights. The trial court denied the adoptive parents' petition, finding that T.R. had exercised his parental rights by providing monetary support to the mother during pregnancy and by attending scheduled visitations with the child. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the father was entitled to custody because he had not consented to the adoption and had taken steps to assert his rights promptly after learning of the birth. The decision rested on the legal presumption that both parents' consent is required for adoption and on the father's demonstrated involvement, which distinguished the case from precedents where fathers were unaware or uninvolved. The matter was remanded for further custody proceedings consistent with the child's best interests.
family law
STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Hayes
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-07-06 · cited 7×
This case involved disciplinary proceedings by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney John McPherson Hayes under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Hayes had entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor assault and battery after a personal dispute in which he allegedly injured a man with his car amid ongoing conflicts involving his ex-wife and her partner, following earlier harassment via texts and emails. The court found that Hayes violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP because the criminal act reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer and brought discredit to the profession. Despite mitigating factors such as Hayes's cooperation, completion of anger management and therapy, and lack of prior formal discipline, the court rejected the Professional Responsibilities Tribunal's recommendation of a private reprimand. It instead imposed a thirty-day suspension from practice along with costs.
criminal law
Acott v. Newton & O'Connor
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-06-21 · cited 7×
This case involves a lawsuit by John Acott against his former attorney and law firm alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract over two conflicting contingency fee agreements related to settlements from a 1994 car accident and uninsured motorist policy. In a prior appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed a dismissal, identified material factual issues for trial, and rejected defenses like issue preclusion. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on new grounds that the claims amounted to an impermissible collateral attack based on intrinsic fraud. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the law of the case doctrine required the trial court to follow the first appeal's directives and that the defendants' new arguments did not fall within any exception to that doctrine.
proceduretorts & liability
May v. OKLAHOMA BANK AND TRUST CO.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-06-14 · cited 4×
The case involved a dispute over whether the Oklahoma Bank and Trust Company, as trustee of a testamentary trust, could deduct from the trust attorney fees of $19,457.80 and a special trustee fee of $8,894.22 that it incurred while recovering royalty income from a five-acre mineral interest in Roger Mills County. The bank had failed for nearly two decades to record a 1989 decree of partial distribution as required by statute, allowing the royalties to be paid instead to the estate of the settlor's widow; after the beneficiary objected during the court's supervision of the twelfth annual accounting, the trial court approved the deductions but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. The court held that under the Oklahoma Trust Act a trustee may not charge the trust for expenses or fees arising from its own negligence in failing to perform a statutory duty, as such costs are not properly incurred in the administration of the trust. It further ruled that a trustee is not entitled to a special fee for remedying the consequences of its own breach of fiduciary duty.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory