James E. Edmondson

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Marriage of Craig v. Craig, paternal grandparents sought a court order for visitation with their grandchild in the parents' divorce proceeding, without the consent of the custodial mother and without invoking Oklahoma's grandparent-visitation statute. The trial court granted the request after an evidentiary hearing, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that grandparents may not obtain compelled visitation outside the procedures and standards of the specific statute when a sole custodial parent objects. The Court reasoned that its prior decisions consistently limit grandparent visitation rights to those conferred by statute, and it overruled contrary Court of Civil Appeals opinions that had allowed bypass of the statute. The opinion emphasizes that subject-matter jurisdiction for such orders requires proper invocation of the visitation statute.

family law

The case involved a replevin action by Girl Scouts-Western Oklahoma, Inc. (Western), the surviving entity after a merger between two Girl Scout councils, to obtain files and documents—including employee severance agreements—from an attorney who had represented one of the predecessor councils. The attorney refused to turn over the materials, asserting attorney-client privilege and work product protection. The trial court granted summary judgment to Western, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that under the merger agreement and Oklahoma General Corporation Act §1088, all rights, privileges, and property of the predecessor corporation, including the attorney-client privilege, transferred by operation of law to the surviving corporation. The court further reasoned that client files belong to the client, so the work product doctrine did not prevent Western from obtaining the documents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Tracy Smith for professional misconduct. The Bar alleged two counts: Smith was arrested after attempting to fill forged prescriptions for the controlled substance hydrocodone at a pharmacy, and she later experienced relapses involving diet pills and marijuana while in drug treatment following her arrest. Smith admitted the allegations, and the matter proceeded uncontested before a trial panel. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found violations of Rule 8.4(b) and (c) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings based on the criminal acts and dishonesty involved. It imposed a public reprimand along with a one-year deferred suspension subject to probationary conditions including continued counseling, drug testing, and AA/NA attendance, citing mitigating factors such as her rehabilitation efforts, lack of client harm, and remorse.

criminal law

This case involved a disciplinary proceeding by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Tracy Smith for alleged professional misconduct. The Bar alleged that Smith forged prescriptions to obtain controlled substances including hydrocodone, leading to her arrest on felony charges, and that she later relapsed into drug use while in treatment. Smith admitted the allegations, expressed remorse, completed inpatient treatment, maintained sobriety with ongoing counseling and monitoring, and caused no harm to clients. The court found violations of ORPC Rules 8.4(a), (b), and (c) and RGDP Rule 1.3 but imposed a public reprimand along with a one-year deferred suspension subject to probationary conditions such as continued therapy, drug testing, and AA/NA attendance, plus assessment of costs.

criminal law

The case was a bar disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged attorney Timothy Charles Edwards with multiple violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings arising from his handling of two clients' personal injury and workers' compensation matters, including delays in paying medical providers from settlement funds, failure to communicate with clients, and refusal to respond to grievance inquiries. Because Edwards did not file an answer to the complaint, the allegations were deemed admitted under the rules, and he also failed to appear at the scheduled hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. Evidence presented included trust account records and testimony showing improper handling of client funds and non-cooperation with the disciplinary process. The Tribunal recommended a suspension of two years and one day, which the court considered in light of the admitted misconduct and prior administrative suspensions of the respondent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Timothy Charles Edwards for alleged violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings arising from his representation of two clients. In the first matter, Edwards delayed payment of medical expenses from settlement funds held in his trust account, failed to communicate with the client, and did not timely respond to bar grievances or appear at scheduled proceedings; similar failures to communicate and account for funds occurred in the second matter. Because Edwards did not answer the formal complaint, the allegations were deemed admitted, and after a hearing the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed the admitted facts, trust account records, and Edwards's limited explanations to determine the appropriate discipline under the governing rules.

procedure

This case involved a qui tam taxpayer's attempt to intervene in a declaratory judgment action filed by the City of Broken Arrow after the taxpayer demanded the City challenge its own resolution approving an economic development project to construct and lease a Bass Pro store, financed in part by pledging municipal sales tax revenues on a year-to-year basis. The taxpayer alleged violations of the Oklahoma Constitution (Articles 10 §§ 19, 26, and 35), the Open Meeting Act, Competitive Bidding Act, and fraud statutes. The City sought a declaratory judgment confirming the transactions' legality and alternative relief if they were found unlawful. The trial court denied intervention, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record showed the City had adequately presented the taxpayer's claims in the proceeding so that intervention was unnecessary.

proceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a taxpayer's attempt to intervene in a declaratory judgment action filed by the City of Broken Arrow concerning the legality of its financing for an economic development project that included constructing a Bass Pro store. The City had pledged sales tax revenues to service a loan for the project and sought a court declaration that its actions complied with state laws and the constitution. The taxpayer challenged the project's funding on grounds including violations of constitutional debt limits, open meeting requirements, and competitive bidding rules. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the intervention motion, reasoning that the City had adequately presented and addressed the taxpayer's claims in its declaratory judgment proceeding.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

This case involves an application by the Oklahoma Bar Association to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for approval of proposed rules establishing a Committee on Judicial Elections. The court, exercising its supervisory and administrative authority over the judiciary under the state constitution, granted the application and ordered the rules adopted. The rules create procedures for receiving and investigating complaints about judicial candidates' conduct under Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including filing, hearings, appellate review, and possible remedial actions such as cease-and-desist orders, while reserving any disciplinary authority to other bodies. The Bar Association developed the rules after years of study, public hearings, and approval by its House of Delegates. The court directed publication of the rules in the Oklahoma Bar Journal and on the Bar's website.

electionsprocedure

This case involves a recommendation from the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters to update eligibility standards under Rule 3 of the Board's rules following 2010 legislative changes to Title 20. The Oklahoma Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction to amend the rule, which sets requirements for candidates seeking certification, including proof of age, ethical fitness, education, proficiency, application submission, and compliance with statutory provisions. The court ordered the specific amendments to take effect on November 1, 2010, and directed publication of the changes. The decision was based on the need to align the rules with the recent statutory amendments.

procedure

The case involved an employee's appeal from a trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against several companies for failure to state a claim. The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. The court explained that under Oklahoma law, an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment, and a motion to reconsider filed more than 10 days after the judgment does not extend that deadline. The employee's late motion and subsequent appeal from the denial of reconsideration were therefore ineffective to preserve appellate jurisdiction.

procedure

This case involved a dispute between Henryetta Medical Center and Peggy L. Roberts over a workers' compensation claim handled by the Workers' Compensation Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision in the matter. The court granted the motion to publish the appellate opinion in the official reporter and accord it precedential value pursuant to Oklahoma statutes and court rules, with a majority of justices concurring and three dissenting.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved attorney Sylvia McCormick Spilman, who had resigned from the Oklahoma Bar after a 1995 bribery conviction, later received reinstatement in 2004 and a pardon in 2005, and obtained a district court order expunging her criminal records; she then petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court to seal and expunge records from her Bar disciplinary resignation, reinstatement, and current proceedings. The Court assumed original jurisdiction but denied the request, holding that the expungement statutes (22 O.S. §§ 18 and 19) authorize district courts to seal criminal records but do not extend to the Supreme Court's exclusive authority over attorney discipline and Bar records. The core reasoning was that the statutes limit relief to district court proceedings involving criminal files, do not reference or empower the Supreme Court or Bar Association to seal disciplinary matters, and sealing would conflict with the public interest in evaluating lawyers' ethical conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Oklahoma attempting to appeal a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus that released Clyde Powell from a state psychiatric hospital, where he had been committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity for murdering his mother in 1990. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that under Oklahoma law and longstanding precedent, there is no right to appeal from orders in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they result in discharge or remand, to ensure the writ provides a speedy remedy without the delays of appellate review, as supported by the state constitution and statutes.

criminal lawprocedure