Yvonne Kauger

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.

family lawpropertyprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

taxeslabor & employment

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.

taxespropertyprocedurecivil rights

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case addressed whether a parent in a child custody dispute has a right to review the transcript of a trial court's private in camera interview with the children. The father sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied his request for the transcript of interviews conducted during divorce proceedings, in which the mother received custody. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction to establish guidelines for such interviews under 43 O.S. Supp.2002 § 113, including requirements for recording and stating reasons for excluding attorneys, but denied the writ. The court held that due process does not require providing the transcript to parents for their own curiosity if they do not appeal the custody determination, and amended Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.33 accordingly.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Keota Mills & Elevator's lawsuit to recover on a defaulted 1989 promissory note executed by Othel Gamble, Jr., after he made sporadic partial payments through 2001. The parties disputed whether the five-year statute of limitations under the general contract statute in effect at the time of execution or the six-year UCC period applied, but the court addressed an additional statute providing that partial payments on a contract extend the time to sue. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the action was timely because it was filed within months of the final payment, as 12 O.S. § 101 revived the limitations period upon voluntary partial payments acknowledging the debt. The trial court's dismissal on limitations grounds was reversed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an eminent domain action by the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges to condemn a parcel of land owned by McCloskey Brothers, Inc., near the Oklahoma State University campus for development of an athletic village including training facilities and parking. The landowner challenged the Regents' authority on grounds including the Board's composition under the state constitution, the public purpose of the taking, and the good-faith nature of pre-suit negotiations. The trial court rejected the challenges to the Board's legitimacy and confirmed the commissioners' valuation report after a hearing. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that challenges to the Regents' composition must be brought via quo warranto proceedings by the State rather than by a private landowner, that the Regents acted as de facto officials whose actions were valid, that the athletic village served a public purpose, and that the Regents had negotiated in good faith before filing suit.

propertyprocedure

In Collier v. Reese, the plaintiff sued several defendants for assault and battery following a fight at a fast food restaurant, while related criminal charges were pending against some parties; the plaintiff sought to introduce polygraph test results supporting his version of events, prompting the defendants to request that the trial court seal all references to the tests and bar any public disclosure. The trial court issued an ex parte order sealing the polygraph materials in the record, prohibiting dissemination to the media or public, and requiring court pre-approval for any future evidentiary filings. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the order was an appealable interlocutory order and that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an overly broad gag order that restricted speech without demonstrating a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. The court reasoned that First Amendment protections against prior restraints apply to court records and party statements in civil proceedings, and that the order failed to meet the high threshold for suppressing information related to judicial proceedings.

free speechcriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a prisoner appealing the denial of his motion to vacate a dismissal in an automobile negligence action; after the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court, the prisoner sought to file a petition for certiorari out of time because he did not receive actual notice of the opinion until after the mandate issued due to a transfer between facilities and failures in mail forwarding by prison officials. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recalled the mandate and granted leave to file the petition out of time. The court reasoned that actual notice of an appealable event triggers the running of the appeal period, and where there is a problem with service or delivery, the time begins upon receipt of actual notice rather than the date of the opinion or mandate. The prisoner's delay in filing a change of address did not bar relief given the undisputed facts of non-delivery and his prompt action after learning of the opinion.

procedure

In State v. Tyler, a surety bondsman sought exoneration of a $50,000 appearance bond after the defendant failed to appear at a formal arraignment on drug trafficking charges; the trial court had granted an indefinite continuance without setting a new date certain, and the defendant later failed to appear for a motion hearing, prompting bond forfeiture. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that 59 O.S. Supp. 2008 § 1332(A) did not bar the trial court from continuing the arraignment but that the lack of a definite appearance date meant the bondsman received inadequate notice, materially increasing her risk of liability. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motions to exonerate the bond. The case centered on statutory requirements for bond forfeiture procedures and the effect of continuances on sureties in criminal proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Brian Wilson, a prisoner acting pro se, suing his father-in-law Carl Webb and Brent Stapp for conversion after they allegedly sold his race car parts without authorization. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the statute of limitations and denied Wilson's subsequent motion for new trial, which was filed without his attorney's signature. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding the motion ineffective due to lack of counsel's involvement. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that Wilson's earlier-filed notice of change of address, documenting his dismissal of counsel, rendered the pro se motion valid under precedent requiring notice of such changes.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Steve Crutchfield, who obtained a 2001 judgment against Marine Power Engine, Inc. (MP Engine) for unpaid employment-related amounts after his 1997 termination, and later sought to enforce it via garnishment against a customer of Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. (MP Holding), a successor entity twice removed through asset sales. The trial court held MP Holding liable under the 'mere continuation' exception to the general rule of non-liability for successor corporations and awarded fees to Crutchfield, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. It ruled that liability of a successor once-removed requires each link in the corporate chain to independently satisfy one of the Pulis v. United States Elec. Tool Co. exceptions, and that the mere-continuation test focuses on continuity of the corporate entity rather than business operations; insufficient evidence supported applying the exception here. The Court further held that 12 O.S. Supp.2002 § 1190(B)(1) does not authorize attorney fees and costs for a putative judgment debtor in a garnishment proceeding, while the prevailing garnishee is entitled to such an award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved grandchildren of a decedent who claimed a statutory share of assets held in her revocable inter vivos trust as pretermitted heirs under 84 O.S. §132, or alternatively argued that the trust was illusory and invalid because the decedent had served as both sole trustee and sole vested beneficiary during her life. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that §132 applies only to wills and does not extend to revocable inter vivos trusts, and that the trust was valid because it named contingent beneficiaries to receive the assets upon the settlor's death. The court reasoned from the statute's plain language limiting its reach to wills, and from established trust principles that a trust does not merge or become illusory when the settlor is sole trustee and beneficiary if at least one contingent beneficiary exists.

propertyfamily law

This case involved a challenge to Senate Bill 1874, which authorized the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority to issue bonds for projects involving the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, and the River Parks Authority. The petitioner argued that the bill violated the Oklahoma Constitution's single-subject rule by encompassing multiple unrelated topics, seeking to invalidate only the sections related to the Conservation Commission and River Parks Authority since bonds for the first section had already been issued. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the petitioner could challenge only the unissued bond portions, declaring sections 2 and 3 unconstitutional and void for violating the one-subject requirement of article 5, section 57 of the state constitution, as the bill combined distinct subjects without a logical connection.

procedure

The case concerns whether Oklahoma law provides adequate and uniform remedies for employment discrimination claims based on race, national origin, and age under the state constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reformulated certified questions from a federal district court and held that the Oklahoma Constitution requires the same remedies to be available to all victims within the same class of employment discrimination, which includes race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and handicap, regardless of whether the remedies come from federal or state law. The court reasoned that if statutory remedies are not uniform and evenhanded for similar discrimination claims, a plaintiff may pursue a common law Burk tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This applies even after a settlement in the underlying case due to public interest in clarifying the law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved former Weyerhaeuser employees terminated in 2002 and 2003 who sued in federal court alleging age discrimination under the federal ADEA and later added Oklahoma tort claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, relying on the 2006 Saint v. Data Exchange decision. The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed certified questions and held that Saint implicitly overruled the 1996 List v. Anchor Paint decision, which had limited such Burk tort claims when statutory remedies existed, and that Saint applies retroactively. The core reasoning centered on the need for uniform remedies under the Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition on special laws regulating judicial proceedings, combined with application of the Sunburst doctrine allowing retroactive effect for the new precedent.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case concerned claims by Tuffy's Inc. and its president against the City of Oklahoma City for negligence and tortious interference with a business relationship, stemming from alleged police misconduct including physical attacks, harassment, and use of mace and dogs against customers at the plaintiffs' nightclub, along with prior incidents of customer harassment. The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss with prejudice under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had stated claims for which relief could be legally possible because the GTCA waives immunity for torts committed by employees within the scope of employment unless in bad faith or malice, the law-enforcement exemption does not automatically bar all such claims, and questions of whether officers acted within the scope of employment or in bad faith are factual issues that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

This case involved the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's condemnation of about 1.5 acres of the Perdues' land for highway widening, where initial commissioners assessed just compensation at $9,500 in 2005. Nearly two years later, after discovering additional unforeseen damages during construction, ODOT sought and obtained a court order for the commissioners to issue an amended report raising the award to $42,800, which the trial court confirmed over the Perdues' timeliness objection. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred because state statutes require any exception to a commissioners' report to be filed within 30 days, and courts lack authority to permit late reevaluations or new reports outside that period even for good cause. The core reasoning emphasized that condemnation proceedings are special statutory actions with strict procedural deadlines that must be followed to ensure orderly resolution and protect parties' rights regarding fees and jury trials.

propertyprocedure