Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Tate
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-04-10 · cited 31×
The case concerned whether a bail bondsman who failed to deposit the face amount of a forfeited surety bond with the court clerk by the ninety-first day after receiving notice of forfeiture could later seek remitter of the funds under 59 O.S. § 1332(D)(2) after returning the defendant to custody. The bondsman had posted a $6,500 bond, the defendant failed to appear, the bond was forfeited, and the bondsman paid the judgment on the ninety-second day before returning the defendant within the one-year period and filing for remitter. The trial court granted the motion for remitter and vacated the forfeiture, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. The court held that timely deposit by the ninety-first day is a condition precedent to seeking remitter, based on the plain language and structure of the statute requiring harmonization of subsections (D)(1) and (D)(2).
criminal lawprocedure
COVEL v. Rodriguez
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-01-31 · cited 45×
This case was a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of H.K. Covel, who died in a head-on collision after his pickup crossed the median on I-35; plaintiffs claimed the collision was caused by defective brakes on defendants' oncoming bus, while defendants argued the bus was not a cause and that the accident was sudden and unavoidable. After a jury trial resulting in a $2.8 million verdict plus punitive damages for plaintiffs, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed on the ground that plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation was inadmissible under Daubert standards. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that defendants waived any Daubert challenge by failing to object to the expert's testimony or conclusions at trial, either in limine or contemporaneously, and that the appellate court could not disregard the admitted evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury's on sufficiency questions. The Court concluded that the trial court's denial of post-verdict motions was proper and reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision.
torts & liabilityprocedure
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-10-18 · cited 97×
This case involves a petition by George L. Mothershed, an attorney disbarred by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2003 following formal disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Oklahoma Bar Association, to vacate that disbarment order years later. Mothershed argued that the original proceedings lacked subject matter jurisdiction because his alleged misconduct occurred in federal bankruptcy court and lacked personal jurisdiction due to improper service. The court reviewed the record, which showed proper service of the formal complaint by certified mail and personal delivery, as well as Mothershed's filing of an answer and multiple motions that did not timely raise jurisdictional objections. The court concluded that his arguments were without merit, as the Supreme Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline regardless of the forum of the underlying conduct, and denied the petition to vacate.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Rogers v. Bailey
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-07-06 · cited 8×
In Rogers v. Bailey, plaintiff Odette Rogers initiated a forcible entry and detainer action in small claims court to regain possession of property from defendants, the Baileys, who had lived there and claimed ownership based on long-term mortgage payments. The Baileys filed a response and counterclaim asserting title, along with a motion to transfer the case to the district court docket for an ejectment proceeding under 12 O.S. § 1148.6. The trial court denied the transfer, finding the defendants' claim of an equitable interest insufficiently supported, proceeded with the small claims trial, and awarded possession to Rogers; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Baileys had timely asserted a claim of title requiring transfer out of small claims and treatment as an ejectment action, and that the statutory requirements for such a transfer had been met.
propertyprocedure
Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-06-28 · cited 27×
The case concerned whether the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma had waived its sovereign immunity in three-year employment contracts with tribal employees, allowing the employees to sue for unpaid salaries after early termination. The contracts included a limited waiver clause, and the Tribe's Business Committee had passed resolutions authorizing the chief to sign the agreements and attempting to ratify that action. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the resolutions did not expressly and unequivocally waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity, as required by a prior tribal resolution mandating Business Committee consent via resolution for any waiver to be valid, and the ratification did not cover the contracts themselves. The court therefore concluded the Tribe retained immunity and affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
labor & employmentprocedure
In Re the Reinstatement of Dobbs
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-04-26 · cited 11×
This case concerned James Mark Dobbs's petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his 2004 suspension for two years and one day due to misconduct that included false notarizations, inducing another to falsely notarize, and lying under oath. The trial panel recommended denial based on insufficient evidence of good moral character, while the Oklahoma Bar Association took a neutral position. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the factors from Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, finding that Dobbs had established by clear and convincing evidence his rehabilitation, present moral fitness, legal competency, and lack of unauthorized practice since suspension. The court therefore granted reinstatement, with one justice dissenting, and ordered Dobbs to pay costs of the proceeding.
procedure