Marian P. Opala

This case involves post-appeal proceedings in a child welfare matter where a mother challenged trial court orders following an earlier appellate decision affirming aspects of a 2008 permanency plan for her adopted child, who had been placed in DHS custody and foster care due to the mother's health decline. The mother argued that the trial judge ignored the prior mandate by maintaining the child's placement with the foster parent, limiting her to supervised visitation, shifting the permanency plan to long-term out-of-home care, and violating her due process rights. The court rejected all claims, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the mandate, did not abuse discretion in the placement and visitation orders, and did not violate due process. Core reasoning rested on evidence from psychologists and counselors showing the child's ongoing distress and risk of serious psychological harm from reunification efforts or changes in placement, consistent with statutory standards allowing restrictions to protect the child.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against Jeffrey Allen Martin for failing to supervise a nonlawyer employee who provided legal services, including filing documents in federal court, resulting in violations of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. After a de novo review of the stipulated facts and record, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found sufficient evidence of misconduct, including improper delegation and aiding unauthorized practice of law. The court rejected the trial panel's recommendation of a six-month suspension and instead imposed a public reprimand, reasoning that it aligned with the stipulated agreement, mitigating factors such as the respondent's lack of prior discipline and cooperation, and sanctions in comparable cases.

procedure

The case involved Oklahoma's Attorney General suing Native Wholesale Supply, a corporation chartered by the Sac and Fox Tribe, for allegedly violating the Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act by selling Seneca brand cigarettes in the state without complying with escrow payment and certification requirements for non-participating tobacco manufacturers. The trial court found personal jurisdiction based on minimum contacts but dismissed the case, holding that the Indian Commerce Clause barred enforcement against the tribally chartered entity. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant and reversed on subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that federal law does not preempt the state's authority to enforce its nondiscriminatory regulatory statute against off-reservation commercial activities. The core reasoning was that the company's sales into Oklahoma created sufficient contacts for jurisdiction and that tribes and their members engaging in off-reservation business remain subject to generally applicable state laws absent express federal preemption.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned the length of a driver's license revocation imposed by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety on Jordan Jobe following his third alcohol-related driving offense within five years. Jobe argued for a one-year revocation period because his first revocation occurred more than five years before the third arrest based on the date his license was seized and notice served, while DPS maintained it was a three-year period since the prior revocation's effective date fell within five years. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that under the relevant statute a revocation commences when the actual revocation period begins rather than upon initial seizure or notice, and therefore the three-year revocation applied to Jobe's third offense.

criminal law

In this case, consumers filed a putative class action against several fuel retailers alleging breach of contract, warranties, and violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act for selling gasoline containing ethanol without disclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of a cognizable claim and that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, finding jurisdiction in district court and a disclosure duty under 52 O.S. § 391. On interlocutory review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over these private-rights claims, as the Commission’s authority is limited to public rights and it cannot award damages, but that the cited statute created no duty to disclose fuel additives.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by the mother of a twelve-year-old girl against Oklahoma City under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, alleging that a police officer used excessive force during an arrest at a middle school, resulting in the girl's broken wrist and injured elbow while breaking up a fight. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, finding it immune from liability under one of the GTCA's statutory exemptions. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper because the evidentiary materials presented genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officer's use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and whether the City's claimed exemptions from liability applied. The court emphasized that summary process cannot resolve disputed factual inferences and remanded the case for further proceedings, while noting that the City could raise additional defenses on remand.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether Oklahoma's anti-deficiency statute, by extinguishing a mortgage debt after a foreclosure sale without a deficiency judgment, also barred a lender's separate claims for fraud in the inducement of the loan and liability on a guaranty. Bank of Oklahoma had financed Red Arrow Marina's purchase of a marina via a note secured by mortgage, security interest, and a personal guaranty, then sued the borrowers, guarantor, and sellers after default, alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the property's value and repayment ability. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the ground that failure to seek a deficiency barred further recovery, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed as to the guaranty and fraud claims. It held that the statute protects only the underlying mortgage debt and does not absolve parties from damages for fraudulent misrepresentations or from obligations under a distinct guaranty agreement whose terms control its scope.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System could obtain an order requiring the City of Spencer to terminate its newly hired fire chief, Ronald Cummings, who was ineligible for membership in the pension system because of his age under 11 O.S. § 49-135. The trial court ruled the hiring violated the statute but denied the requested termination order, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held the appeal was not moot despite Cummings' later departure from the position and that the district court possessed authority to direct termination. The court reasoned that exceptions to mootness applied due to public interest and likelihood of recurrence, and that statutes authorizing declaratory relief for enforcement of pension provisions permitted consequential orders to remove an ineligible employee.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged W. Kirk Clausing with professional misconduct arising from his service as sole trustee of a spendthrift trust. Clausing made two unauthorized withdrawals from the trust funds for personal purposes (one to cover his own tax liability and one for a business investment) and paid himself trustee fees in advance, actions the parties stipulated violated RGDP Rule 1.3 and ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.7, and 1.8. After a de novo review of the record, the Oklahoma Supreme Court confirmed that sufficient evidence supported the findings of misconduct involving self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties. The court held that the trial panel's recommended six-month suspension was not an appropriate sanction and required a different disciplinary outcome consistent with prior cases.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, a homeowner sued a plumbing company for negligence and breach of contract after a sewer backup damaged his home eleven years after the company replaced his sewer line. The court considered whether the sewer line replacement qualified as an improvement to real property under the statute of repose and whether the statute of limitations could be extended by the discovery rule. The court held that the replacement was an improvement to real property, barring the claims under the statute of repose, and that the discovery rule did not apply to extend the statute of limitations. The reasoning centered on the definition of improvement from tax code and prior case law, determining that the new line added value beyond normal maintenance.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Bowman v. Presley, home buyers sued the sellers, realtor, and broker after discovering that the house they purchased for $145,000 had been represented as containing 2,890 square feet but was actually only 2,187 square feet according to appraisals. The buyers alleged fraud, breach of implied contract, and violation of the Oklahoma Real Estate License Code, claiming the size misrepresentation influenced their purchase decision and the price paid. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed on certiorari. The court held that summary judgment was improper because material facts remained in dispute regarding whether the size representations were fraudulent or substantially inaccurate and whether the buyers suffered harm as a result. The core reasoning was that buyers may rely on positive statements by sellers and realtors about property size, and questions of reliance, misrepresentation, and damages must be resolved at trial rather than on summary disposition.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, a law firm that had represented a wife in divorce proceedings sought to enforce its charging lien on a court-awarded attorney fee and costs judgment after the wife filed for bankruptcy and discharged the underlying debt. The trial court found the lien enforceable, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed on statute of limitations grounds. The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and affirmed the trial court's result on different grounds, holding that the fee award was impressed with a constructive trust for the law firm's benefit and thus was never part of the wife's bankruptcy estate. The court reasoned that the attorney's lien statute provided the applicable enforcement rules and that the bankruptcy discharge did not extinguish the firm's prior claim to the funds.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a commercial auto liability insurance policy's "Loaned Vehicle Exclusion" for vehicles provided to repair shop customers was enforceable under Oklahoma law, along with related questions about an insurer's duty to defend and potential bad faith liability for denying coverage or uninsured motorist benefits. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered certified questions by holding that the exclusion was void in whole or in part because it conflicted with the state's Compulsory Liability Insurance statute requiring minimum coverage, and that the exclusion did not relieve the insurer of its contractual duty to defend an insured. The court further held that an insurer does not act in bad faith by relying on the exclusion to deny or delay uninsured motorist benefits, as the UM statute permits certain occupancy-based restrictions on coverage for insureds who had the opportunity to obtain their own policies. The reasoning focused on statutory public policy mandating liability insurance and distinctions in prior case law between class one insureds and others regarding UM protections.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a post-conviction disciplinary proceeding against Oklahoma attorney Cameron Maxwell Spradling, who pleaded guilty in federal court to one misdemeanor count of willful failure to file an income tax return for 2003, with two other counts dismissed under a plea agreement. The court conducted a de novo review of the record to assess whether the conviction demonstrated unfitness to practice law under Rule 7.1, noting the lawyer's prior unrelated public censure and that the offense did not arise from the practice of law. The court held that a conviction for willful failure to file tax returns demonstrates unfitness to practice law because it shows disregard for federal law and undermines public confidence in the legal profession, and it imposed a six-month suspension effective from the date of the interim suspension order.

criminal lawtaxes

The case concerned whether Texas or Oklahoma law governed uninsured motorist coverage under a Texas-issued auto policy for a fatal accident that occurred in Oklahoma. The insured vehicle was registered and garaged in Texas, and the policy contained an exclusion barring UM benefits for the covered vehicle itself. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer Charter, applying Texas law, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the choice-of-law rule from Bohannan v. Allstate required application of Texas law because the contract was made in Texas, the public-policy exception did not apply where Oklahoma UM benefits had already been paid under a separate policy, and Oklahoma lacked the most significant relationship to the parties and subject matter.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned ad valorem property tax assessments by Woods County, Oklahoma, on natural gas owned by Missouri Gas Energy that was stored in a Panhandle Eastern Pipeline facility in the county while en route via interstate pipeline from suppliers in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma to customers in Missouri. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the company and upheld the assessments for tax years 1998 through 2000. The court held that the assessor proved the gas had a tax situs in Woods County and was owned by MGE, that it constituted tangible personal property, and that the tax satisfied the Complete Auto Transit test under the Commerce Clause while falling outside the scope of Oklahoma's Freeport Exemption.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

In Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., daughters of a deceased nursing home resident sued the facility for negligence on her behalf; after the initial action was dismissed without prejudice, they refiled under the savings statute but served process 185 days later. The trial court dismissed the recommenced case, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for the five-day delay beyond the 180-day statutory limit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order, holding that the trial court's decision is presumed correct and that a law firm's internal docketing error did not constitute good cause to excuse untimely service. The court vacated the intermediate appellate opinion to issue its own reasoning on the procedural issues raised.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether Equity Insurance Company effectively canceled an auto insurance policy issued to Jesse St. Clair after he failed to pay a September premium installment, leaving the insurer without liability for a December accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to Equity, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. Relying on its recent decision in Equity Insurance Company v. City of Jenks, the court held that the monthly invoice's preemptive statement about automatic cancellation for nonpayment did not constitute the required clear, unequivocal, in praesenti notice after the payment failure; instead, the policy terms mandated at least a ten-day notice of cancellation following nonpayment. Because that ruling resolved the dispute, the court did not address whether the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Protection Code applied to the installment arrangement.

business & regulatory

The case involved Cynthia Ashikian, a horse trainer, challenging an order by the Blue Ribbon Downs Board of Stewards that declared her suspended or ineligible for licensing due to an unpaid stall rental bill of $462 after her Oklahoma racing license had expired at the end of 2000. The Stewards issued the order following a default hearing in April 2001, which she did not attend because notice sent by mail was not forwarded; this order later led Iowa authorities to require her to return prize money won there. Ashikian sued in Oklahoma district court seeking to void the order, arguing lack of jurisdiction, and the trial court granted summary judgment in her favor, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court held the order void because under the then-applicable OHRC Rule 325:1-1-7, the Stewards' 30-day jurisdiction after the race meeting had expired without a timely extension by the Commission, depriving them of authority to act. The decision rested on the rule's plain terms limiting jurisdiction and the principle that an agency cannot exercise power it no longer possesses.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a referendum petition filed by Melissa Neidy and others to challenge a City of Chickasha ordinance creating a tax increment financing district after a November 2005 special election on a sales tax. The city clerk and trial court ruled the petition invalid for lacking sufficient signatures, calculated as 25% of the 2,207 votes cast in the November election rather than the 512 votes from the prior March 2005 general municipal election. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the March 2005 election must be used to determine the required number of signatures under the state constitution and Local Development Act because it was the last preceding general municipal election in which all city voters could participate. The core reasoning relied on precedent interpreting "next preceding election" to mean the most recent general municipal election, not a special election on a specific issue.

electionstaxes