The case involved a dispute between a divorced couple and the ex-wife's daughter over possession of farm equipment, where the plaintiff brought a replevin action in small claims court two years after a prior contempt proceeding regarding marital property. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding them barred both by the preclusive effect of the earlier contempt action and by the two-year statute of limitations under 12 O.S. § 95(A)(3). The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that a trial court in a small claims proceeding may apply the applicable statute of limitations or other rules of law to the evidence presented, even if not raised by the parties. The core reasoning was that the Small Claims Procedure Act prioritizes informal, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, granting trial judges latitude to control proceedings and apply dispositive legal principles within due process bounds.
This case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Oklahoma's Workers' Compensation statute, 85 O.S. 2001 § 22(7), which caps cumulative permanent partial disability awards at 100% or 520 weeks for any individual employee. The employer argued that prior awards to the employee, including those involving surgeries, should count toward the 520-week limit, while the employee sought benefits exceeding that total after exclusions. The Oklahoma Supreme Court resolved conflicting Court of Civil Appeals decisions by holding that exclusions for awards against the Multiple Injury Trust Fund and for amputations and surgeries apply to both the percentage and week limitations. The court based its ruling on the plain statutory language, which separates the exclusions from the caps and allows additional benefits outside the limits when applicable.
The case involved a patient suing her orthopedic surgeon for medical negligence after she developed femoral nerve damage and quadriceps atrophy following arthroscopic knee surgery, alleging the injury occurred due to an incident during the procedure and invoking res ipsa loquitur. The trial court granted the surgeon's motion for summary judgment on grounds that the patient failed to present adequate expert testimony or evidence supporting res ipsa loquitur, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidentiary materials—including a neurologist's report linking the injury to possible compression during surgery and the statutory presumption under 76 O.S.2001 § 21—were sufficient to withstand summary judgment by creating factual questions on negligence and causation. The court applied standards requiring consideration of all inferences favorable to the plaintiff and noted that no pre-filing expert affidavit was required in the relevant time period.
The case concerned whether an Oklahoma school district could deduct federal employer withholding taxes from $5,000 teacher bonuses awarded under the Education Leadership Oklahoma Act when the State Department of Education provided insufficient funds to cover both the full bonuses and the taxes. Teachers and their professional organization sued after the district reduced their payments, seeking a declaratory judgment that the deductions violated statutes and agency directives. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no justiciable controversy and that the district was not liable for the bonuses. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act makes bonus payments subject to the availability of funds and that federal tax law requires the district, as the payer, to withhold and remit the employer taxes from the allocated amounts.
The case involved a homeowner who challenged the Oklahoma County Assessor's fair market value assessment of his residence in district court after an unsuccessful protest to the Board of Equalization. The assessor sought entry to the home for inspection and photographs under the civil discovery code, but the homeowner moved for a protective order citing a specific statute barring such entry absent a dispute over household personal property valuation. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the assessor had no right to enter the residence, ruling that 68 O.S.2001 § 2818(C)(1) and (D) prohibit entry without a taxpayer-requested inspection tied to disputed personal property values, and that Oklahoma County's exemption of household goods from taxation eliminated any basis for entry. The Court further determined that the general discovery statute could not override this explicit statutory limitation, which incorporates Fourth Amendment and state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
The case involved a buyer who purchased a vehicle service contract from Enterprise Financial Group along with a car; after a mechanical breakdown six months later, the provider refused the claim, leading the buyer to sue for breach of contract and bad faith breach of contract. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the provider on the ground that the service contract was not an insurance contract and therefore could not support a bad faith claim. On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that a vehicle service contract meets the definition of an insurance contract under the Oklahoma Insurance Code. The court reasoned that the contract undertakes to indemnify the buyer for repair costs upon the contingency of mechanical breakdown, consistent with the statutory definition of insurance and the regulatory framework of the Service Warranty Insurance Act.