Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Fent v. Fallin
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-09-26
The case involved a challenge to a provision in Oklahoma law requiring the Governor to consult with legislative leaders before approving expenditures from the Quick Action Fund. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and granted declaratory relief, ruling that the consultation requirement unconstitutionally infringed on the separation of powers by limiting the executive branch's authority. The court declared the specific subsection unconstitutional and void but severable from the rest of the statute, allowing the remainder to stand. This decision was based on the Oklahoma Constitution's provision for distinct powers among government departments, following precedent from a similar case.
business & regulatory
Wilson v. Fallin
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-09-01 · cited 10×
This case involved a challenge by Oklahoma State Senator Jim Wilson to the State Senate Redistricting Act of 2011 under section 11C of Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution, claiming the plan failed to meet requirements for compactness, political units, historical precedents, and other factors in section 9A. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the population-based aspect of the apportionment formula in section 9A remains in effect while the county-based aspect is invalid due to prior federal court rulings, and that review under section 11C is limited by section 11D to compliance with the population formula. The court determined that the Redistricting Act satisfies the population apportionment requirements, as the maximum population deviation between districts was minimal and comparable to the petitioner's proposed alternative. The decision rested on construing the constitutional provisions in light of federal precedents emphasizing equal population representation and the limited scope of the review proceeding, without addressing non-population factors.
electionsprocedure
HAC, INC. v. Box
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010-12-14 · cited 6×
The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Robert Shane Box, a grocery store employee, for a right arm injury sustained in a scuffle with a coworker on January 22, 2009. The trial judge found that Box was an innocent victim of horseplay and awarded temporary total disability and permanent partial disability benefits, and both a three-judge panel and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge's finding was not supported by competent evidence. The court reasoned that Box's own testimony showed he voluntarily left his work station to pursue the coworker and engaged in the scuffle, while medical reports near the time of injury described the incident as rough housing, with no evidence from witnesses supporting an inference that Box was an innocent victim. As a result, the injury did not arise out of employment under 85 O.S. 2001, § 11(A)(4), and the claim was denied.
labor & employment
In Re the Reinstatement of Perry
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010-11-09
The case involves Layton M. Perry, Jr., a lawyer disbarred in 1997, who petitioned for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after the OBA opposed his request. The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the petition following an independent review of the record and the findings of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. The court determined that Perry did not meet his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed good moral character, had refrained from the unauthorized practice of law, complied with client notification rules, paid required costs and restitution, or maintained sufficient competency in the law. Perry had also failed to notify clients of his disbarment in a timely manner, continued to hold himself out as an attorney, omitted facts on his reinstatement questionnaire, and expressed no remorse for his prior conduct.
procedure
Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010-11-02 · cited 12×
The case concerned whether Oklahoma's 'ten bond rule' under title 59, section 1320(B) limits a professional bondsman to writing bonds on no more than ten defendants per year in a county where the bondsman is not registered, and whether the bondsman can avoid that limit by authorizing surety bondsmen to act as agents through powers of attorney. The court held that the statute imposes the ten-defendant limit on the professional bondsman and that using agents does not circumvent it, because the professional bondsman remains responsible for the bonds written under the authority of the power of attorney. The court reasoned that the statute is unambiguous when read with related provisions on licensing and powers of attorney, that the professional bondsman—not the agent—effectively writes the bonds, and that the Insurance Commissioner's contrary informal interpretation was not entitled to deference because it lacked formal rulemaking and contradicted the plain statutory text.
business & regulatorycriminal law
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitebook
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010-10-12 · cited 127×
The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against Oklahoma attorney Merl Alan Whitebook, who was accused in four counts of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by neglecting two probate matters after accepting retainers, failing to refund unearned fees, and not responding to client communications or bar grievances and investigations. Whitebook did not answer the complaint or appear at the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, which deemed the charges admitted and recommended a suspension of two years and one day plus costs. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, confirming that due process was satisfied through proper notice despite the attorney's non-cooperation, and that the misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence under the applicable rules.
procedure