Steven W. Taylor

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing disciplinary charges against attorney Merl Alan Whitebook for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings in two separate probate matters, including neglect of client cases, failure to communicate or complete work, and refusal to refund unearned retainer fees, plus non-cooperation with bar investigations. Whitebook did not file an answer to the formal complaint, failed to appear at hearings, and did not respond to grievance inquiries, resulting in the charges being deemed admitted. After a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal that recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension plus costs, the Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review to determine whether misconduct occurred by clear and convincing evidence and to impose appropriate discipline under its constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned challenges to the constitutionality of sections 2205 and 2203(M) of Oklahoma's Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Act, which established a voluntary program to buy out and relocate residents and businesses from the lead-contaminated Tar Creek Superfund Site in Picher, Oklahoma, and to a provision of the Open Meeting Act governing executive sessions. Plaintiffs, residents and property owners, argued that the Act's provisions barring judicial review of trust decisions and adjusting eligibility and valuations after a 2008 tornado were unconstitutional, and that the trust improperly allowed non-members into closed sessions discussing property appraisals and purchases. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation in sections 2205 or 2203(M). It further ruled that section 307(D) of the Open Meeting Act limits attendance at executive sessions on real-property matters to the public body's members, its attorney, and its immediate staff. The court reasoned that the statutory language expressly enumerates permitted attendees and commits program determinations to the trust's sole discretion without judicial oversight.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the minor child's attorney challenging the district court's approval of $147,289.42 in fees, costs, and expenses paid by the adoptive parents in a private adoption proceeding that included relinquishments by the birth mother and biological father, issues under the Indian Child Welfare Act due to the father's Cherokee Nation membership, and eventual consents to adoption. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion in approving the expenditures and remanded for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that certain expenses, such as a $13,000 private investigator fee arranged by counsel, lacked sufficient justification or reasonableness under the standards applicable to adoption-related costs, including consideration of factors like those in Burk for attorney fees and statutory limits on permissible expenditures.

family law

The case concerned whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's forced pooling order for mineral interests was invalid as to owner Olinka Hrdy due to her name being misspelled as Olinka Hardy in the publication notices and filings. After the interest passed to successors who sought to participate in the well rather than accept the default royalty and bonus, the district court ruled that the notice was adequate and the successors were bound by the order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the names were sufficiently similar under the doctrine of idem sonans to satisfy due process requirements. The Court therefore held that the plaintiffs' interests were subject to the pooling order and secondary to the rights granted to the operator.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by parents against several physicians and a hospital for injuries sustained by their child during a premature delivery in 2003, specifically alleging that Dr. Schlinke provided negligent advice to the treating physician that led to the early delivery and subsequent complications. The trial court granted summary judgment to Dr. Schlinke, which the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. The court held that a physician-patient relationship is an essential element of a medical malpractice claim because it establishes the duty of care, and no such relationship existed here as a matter of law. The undisputed facts showed only a telephone consultation in which Dr. Schlinke offered an opinion without agreeing to treat the patients, examining them, or being formally consulted, even though the treating physician relied on the advice. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in Dr. Schlinke's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings against the remaining defendants.

healthcaretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Robert Reynolds sued his former employer, Advance Alarms, Inc., and its principal owner under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Oklahoma common law, alleging he was fired in retaliation for contacting the Oklahoma Department of Labor about the company's lunch-break policy and whether employees must be paid for working through breaks. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendant on both claims and certified a state-law question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court on whether the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act (40 O.S. §§ 165.2, 165.7, 165.8, and 199) supplies an established public policy that can support a Burk tort claim for wrongful discharge. The court reformulated the question to focus on discharge for contesting the lunch-break policy and answered it in the negative, holding that the cited statutes do not articulate a sufficiently clear and compelling public policy to sustain such a tort action. The reasoning emphasized that the Burk exception to at-will employment must be narrowly applied, limited to violations of well-defined mandates in constitutional, statutory, or decisional law, and that the Protection of Labor Act's provisions on wages and anti-retaliation do not meet that threshold here.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned whether a certified nurse aide misappropriated a resident's property under federal and state regulations when she photocopied two pages of a nursing home resident's medication record and provided the copies to the EEOC to support her racial discrimination complaint. The Oklahoma State Department of Health sought a finding of misappropriation that would be entered on the state Nurse Aide Registry. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the aide's conduct did not constitute misappropriation because the records were the property of the nursing home rather than the resident, and the applicable state regulatory definition requires deliberate misplacement or wrongful use of a resident's own belongings or money. The court emphasized that the state and federal definitions of misappropriation differ materially and that the undisputed facts showed no taking of the resident's property.

healthcarelabor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a bar disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged attorney Tom J. Wilcox with multiple counts of professional misconduct under the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, primarily involving trust account handling, client fund management, and the filing of allegedly frivolous lawsuits that resulted in sanctions. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal reviewed the matter and recommended a public reprimand plus one year of probation, while the Bar Association sought only a private reprimand. The Oklahoma Supreme Court exercised de novo review, rejected the parties' stipulations as unreliable due to factual errors, inconsistencies with the evidence, and insufficient supporting documentation or testimony, and stressed that the Bar Association bears the burden of proving violations by clear and convincing evidence independent of any agreements. The court noted deficiencies in the record but determined it was adequate to proceed with an independent assessment of the alleged misconduct.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved three condemnation actions filed by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to acquire private property, where commissioners assessed compensation amounts and the landowners sought a jury trial on the issue of damages. The landowners filed applications to withdraw the assessed funds that included the phrase "pending trial of the issues by jury," but their separate formal demands for jury trial were filed after the 60-day statutory deadline under title 69, section 1203. The district court ruled that the applications constituted valid jury demands filed within the deadline, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed on certiorari, holding that the applications properly preserved the right to a jury trial under the statute. The core reasoning centered on the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial in condemnation cases and the sufficiency of the language in the timely-filed applications to alert the parties of the demand. The court rejected arguments that only a document explicitly titled "Demand for Jury Trial" would suffice.

propertyprocedure

This case was an attorney disciplinary proceeding against Leah McCaslin Kinsey for submitting false time and expense reports on thirteen occasions over fifteen months, billing clients for out-of-town trips and work that were not performed and seeking reimbursement for related travel expenses totaling $15,697.70. The Oklahoma Bar Association alleged violations of multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on unreasonable fees, protection of client property, and dishonest conduct, as well as a Rule Governing Disciplinary Proceedings provision against acts discrediting the legal profession; Kinsey admitted the facts in her response and answer. After an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma conducted a de novo review and concluded that the record was sufficient, that clear and convincing evidence established the misconduct, and that a twelve-month suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate discipline.

criminal law

The case concerned whether the appointment of a general guardian for an incapacitated person automatically revokes or suspends a preexisting durable power of attorney over the ward's assets, specifically an IRA held at Chase Investment Services. After the ward's daughter and wife were named co-guardians, the daughter continued to request and receive IRA distributions from Chase under the durable power of attorney; the wife later sued Chase, alleging the firm breached its duties by honoring those requests without court approval. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered the certified question by holding that appointment of a general guardian does not automatically withdraw all assets or strip the attorney-in-fact of authority to act. The court reasoned that Oklahoma guardianship statutes permit a durable power of attorney to remain effective alongside a guardianship, that the guardian may also exercise authority as attorney-in-fact, and that no specific court order is required for IRA distributions (unlike sales of real property).

family lawproperty

The case involved a subrogation action by Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. against Structural Systems, Inc. for damages from a fire allegedly caused by negligent construction work on a grain conveyor system in Arkansas, with the key issue being which state's time bar applied after the suit was refiled in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma answered a certified question from the Tenth Circuit by holding that the phrase 'period of limitation' in Oklahoma's borrowing statute (12 O.S. § 105) does not include statutes of repose, including the ten-year period for construction tort claims under 12 O.S. § 109. The court reasoned that statutes of limitation are procedural rules that bar the remedy after a cause of action accrues, while statutes of repose are substantive rules that bar the underlying right itself, often before accrual, and the borrowing statute's reference to limitation periods therefore does not encompass repose provisions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is an original proceeding for attorney discipline under Rule 7 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, initiated after respondent James E. Golden, Jr. was convicted in federal court of misprision of a felony for actively concealing his client's health care fraud scheme involving the transfer of pension funds. Golden had pled guilty pursuant to an agreement, receiving a probated sentence and a large restitution order, and the conviction documents served as conclusive evidence of the crime. The court found the record sufficient for review, deemed the conviction proof of unfitness to practice law, and imposed disbarment as the final discipline, noting that the offense required affirmative acts of concealment that violated professional conduct rules against assisting criminal or fraudulent client conduct. The decision rested on the nature of the crime as reflecting dishonesty and the lawyer's admissions in the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In Curry v. Streater, the plaintiff sought a protective order against her nephew following a verbal altercation at a family funeral graveside service, where threats were exchanged amid a family dispute. The trial court issued a permanent protective order based on harassment under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act but made an explicit finding of no domestic abuse or stalking. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the no-abuse finding and upheld the order on domestic abuse grounds. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the order for harassment, did not abuse its discretion in finding no domestic abuse, and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the no-abuse determination and affirming the protective order.

family lawprocedure