Joseph M. Watt

The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association filing a complaint against attorney Andrew Raymond Townsend for ten counts of professional misconduct, including missing court dates, failing to communicate with clients, lack of diligence, and not returning client files promptly. Townsend had been placed under interim suspension due to personal issues causing depression and anxiety, but the proceedings proceeded as a disciplinary matter under Rule 6 rather than an incapacity proceeding. After a hearing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, on de novo review, found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct warranting discipline but determined that Townsend was no longer incapacitated and could conform to professional standards. The court decided to impose a public reprimand and require payment of costs amounting to $1,193.91.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a medical malpractice claim by Guy Ledbetter and his wife against Dr. Derek Howard and his radiology practice, alleging that Howard negligently misread an x-ray of Ledbetter's foot, delaying treatment for a rapidly deteriorating diabetic condition known as Charcot Foot and causing severe injury. After a jury verdict for the defendants, the trial court granted the plaintiffs a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreperson (a nurse) improperly injecting her professional expertise during deliberations. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the foreperson's affidavit was admissible under the extraneous prejudicial information exception to the juror testimony rule in 12 O.S. § 2606(B), that counsel reasonably relied on her pretrial assurance not to override the evidence with her expertise, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the misconduct affected the plaintiffs' substantial rights. The court rejected arguments that the information was merely internal juror experience rather than extraneous. The decision focused on evidentiary admissibility and standards for reviewing grants of new trials.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is an original disciplinary proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Miles C. Zimmerman for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Responsibility and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings in his handling of a former client's criminal sentencing, post-conviction, and appellate matters. The Bar alleged that Zimmerman failed to pursue an appeal or obtain a trial transcript despite being paid for them, did not communicate his decisions or the status of the case to the client or her family, and improperly retained client funds for the transcript in his personal or operating accounts rather than a trust account. The court reviewed the facts across three counts, considered mitigating circumstances such as the attorney's health issues and family obligations, and compared the conduct to prior discipline cases involving neglect and trust account errors. It determined that violations occurred but imposed discipline short of suspension in light of the mitigating factors and lack of prior discipline.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a disciplinary complaint by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Joe Richard Passmore II, alleging in six counts that he neglected client matters by abandoning representation, failing to communicate with clients or return files, and refusing to respond to grievances or appear at a deposition despite proper notice. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension after Passmore failed to appear at the hearing. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma adopted this recommendation, finding violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (including 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, and 8.4) and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (1.3 and 5.2), based on the uncontested evidence of misconduct across several client representations.

procedure

The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against attorney Caesar Cooleridge Latimer, charging him with five counts of professional misconduct including incompetent representation of multiple clients, failure to communicate with clients, misrepresentations to clients and court personnel, and failure to respond to grievance inquiries. Latimer had a prior disciplinary suspension and did not meaningfully participate in the proceedings or respond to the complaints. Upon de novo review, the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the charges, along with aggravating factors such as prior discipline and disregard for the disciplinary process, while noting some mitigating factors like the attorney's long service. The court suspended Latimer from the practice of law for two years and one day and ordered him to pay costs of $2,042.42.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned John Matthew Whitworth's petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar after a two-year suspension that began in 2006. The suspension stemmed from both Rule 6 disciplinary proceedings and a Rule 10 finding of personal incapacity due to methamphetamine addiction. Whitworth filed his petition in 2010, providing evidence of three years of sobriety, steady employment, compliance with MCLE requirements, payment of costs and restitution, and no unauthorized practice of law. Following a hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied Rule 11 requirements and recommended reinstatement. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review, applying the eight-factor test for reinstatement with particular weight on rehabilitation from the incapacity that led to suspension.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a retail home and ranch supply store, Lumber 2, that sued a manufacturer, ITW, under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) after ITW allegedly failed to deliver reconditioned welder/generators and engaged in other anticompetitive practices related to pricing and sales to competitors. The trial court awarded damages under the OCPA, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed that portion of the judgment, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a retailer purchasing goods for resale qualifies as a "consumer" under the OCPA. The Court held that Lumber 2 was not a consumer, as the OCPA does not define the term and the retailer sought the merchandise for resale to end customers rather than for its own use or consumption. The decision rested on principles of statutory construction, noting the lack of supportive legislative history comparable to other states' consumer protection laws that have extended coverage to businesses.

business & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff who suffered quadriplegia after diving headfirst into a shallow apartment complex pool at night and sued the owners for negligence, alleging inadequate lighting, unlocked gates, missing or obscured signs prohibiting diving, and deceptive depth appearance. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on grounds that the danger was open and obvious, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed on de novo review. The court held that evidence of the pool's lighting creating an impression of greater depth, conflicting testimony about signage and markers, and the rescuer's inability to gauge depth until entering created a genuine factual dispute on whether the hazard was open and obvious or presented a deceptively safe appearance. Under Oklahoma premises liability law, such questions must be resolved by the trier of fact rather than resolved on summary judgment.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case concerned whether Oklahoma's Mining Lands Reclamation Act and related regulations provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard to a property owner potentially affected by a proposed mining permit. Plaintiff Michael Daffin, who lived more than one mile from the site, was barred from participating in an informal conference on the permit application filed by T&M Sand and Gravel, prompting him to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Oklahoma Department of Mines. The trial court issued a temporary injunction preventing the conference from proceeding without Daffin, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that order. The Court held that the one-mile residency requirement and the structure of the informal conference and later administrative review failed to afford sufficient procedural due process under the state constitution, because affected owners would be forced to challenge an already-made decision rather than participate at the initial stage. It reasoned that this created an unfair evidentiary burden and denied a meaningful opportunity to protect property interests before any permit decision.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether actor David Woods could pursue a claim under Oklahoma's right of publicity statute, 12 O.S.2001 § 1449, against publishers who used his photograph on the cover of a book series without his consent or credit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the publishers, applying the two-year statute of limitations for injury to the rights of another and rejecting tolling under the discovery rule. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the two-year limitations period governs because the statutory claim builds on a pre-existing common-law tort of misappropriation rather than creating an entirely new liability, and that the discovery rule may toll the period when a publication is concealed or distributed secretively so that the plaintiff would not reasonably learn of it. The court remanded for a factual determination of when Woods knew or, through reasonable diligence, should have known of the unauthorized use.

proceduretorts & liability

In JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Specialty Restaurants, Inc., Chase foreclosed on a loan secured by a mortgage on restaurant property and guaranty agreements from individuals and a trust. After the property sold at sheriff's sale for $750,000, the trial court valued it at $1.5 million and credited the guarantors with the higher amount toward the deficiency judgment, but Chase appealed arguing the guarantors had waived such credits. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the guarantors were only entitled to credit for the actual sale price because the plain language of their guaranty agreements waived any right to a fair market value setoff under the anti-deficiency statute. The decision rested on contract interpretation rules that enforce unambiguous waivers in guaranty contracts against the guarantors.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Oklahoma attorney Gloyd Lynn McCoy, who faced thirteen counts of professional misconduct including failure to communicate with clients, mishandling client funds, lack of diligence, incompetence, and dishonesty, primarily in criminal defense matters such as appeals and habeas corpus petitions. After the attorney was disbarred by the Tenth Circuit and placed on interim suspension, the Oklahoma Bar Association pursued the matter under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, with McCoy acknowledging his violations and attributing them in part to depression and attention deficit disorder. Following a hearing, the trial panel recommended suspension, and upon de novo review the Oklahoma Supreme Court imposed a suspension of two years and one day along with payment of costs. The court's core reasoning emphasized its duty to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession, holding that this obligation outweighed sympathy for the attorney's personal health challenges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a jurisdictional conflict between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the State of Oklahoma regarding two Indian children, M.S. and K.S., in a deprived child proceeding where parental rights had been terminated. The Tribe sought to transfer the case to tribal court or place the children with a relative under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals, ruling that tribal courts retain jurisdiction over such proceedings post-termination, that no good cause existed to deny transfer, and that the "clear and convincing" evidence standard applies to findings of good cause.

family lawfederal power

In this case, the widow of an employee killed in an airplane crash sued the employer ServiCenter, along with estates of other passengers and individuals, alleging negligence in the plane's maintenance, modifications, and operation during a work-related trip. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting protection under the exclusive remedy provision of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act, which bars tort suits against employers and certain related parties. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the employer was entitled to this protection because the record did not show the employer understood there was a substantial certainty of injury, despite alleged violations of flight restrictions, overweight conditions, and poor weather. However, the Court found material questions of fact remained regarding whether the employer was engaged in a joint venture with other defendants, which could extend workers' compensation immunity to them and a third-party defendant claiming co-employee status.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned royalty owners' claims against Mobil Oil Corp. alleging fraud, deceit, constructive fraud, and punitive damages arising from underpayments under the Fiske Formula for oil and gas production from the Putnam Oswego Unit in Oklahoma, where Mobil had made representations to owners and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission during unitization proceedings. The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed whether these claims were suitable for class certification. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. The core reasoning was that the claims involved standardized misrepresentations with predominant contacts in Oklahoma—most royalty owners being citizens there, representations made and relied upon primarily in the state, and production occurring exclusively in Oklahoma—supporting class treatment under precedents such as Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp. and analysis under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §148.

procedurepropertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns an attorney's petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar after prior suspensions and a resignation pending disciplinary proceedings stemming from multiple instances of misconduct, including misrepresentations to a bank to obtain funds, issuing checks on accounts with insufficient funds totaling over $100,000, and mishandling client funds in probate matters. The court conducted a de novo review and denied reinstatement. It determined that the attorney failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his future conduct would meet required ethical standards, based on evidence of unauthorized practice of law during an earlier suspension, lack of candor regarding the circumstances of his resignation, and failure to strictly comply with rules governing suspension, resignation, and reinstatement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an oil and gas lease terminates automatically under its habendum clause for failure to produce in paying quantities during the secondary term or only upon a court order canceling the lease, along with related claims over equipment valuation in a unitization plan. The court held that the lease ends by its own terms upon the failure to produce, not by judicial decree, and that the termination date here preceded the Alfalfa County court's 2002 order; it further ruled that Baytide remained bound by its agreement to accept $13,200 for its equipment on the wells. The reasoning relied on the lease language itself, prior precedents such as Stewart v. Amerada Hess and Smith v. Marshall, and the fact that Baytide had participated in the unit's valuation process while still asserting lease validity. The Garfield County rulings on title and lack of misuse of process were affirmed.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In White v. Heng Ly Lim, home buyers sued sellers and real estate agents after discovering extensive termite damage in a purchased residence, alleging misrepresentation and seeking actual and punitive damages under various theories including fraud and violation of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Disclosure Act provides the sole and exclusive civil remedy for failure to disclose known defects in residential property, limiting recovery to actual damages and expressly prohibiting exemplary or punitive damages. The court reasoned that the clear and mandatory language of 60 O.S. Supp. 2008 § 837, as amended after prior precedent, supplants all common law claims and determines the rights and remedies in such transactions. The decision overruled Rogers v. Meiser to the extent it allowed punitive damages under the prior statutory version.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved Feather Smoke Shops, a tribally licensed retailer operating smoke shops in Osage County under the Osage Nation, seeking to block the Oklahoma Tax Commission from collecting a higher excise tax rate of $8.58 per carton on cigarette and tobacco sales instead of the $2.58 rate under the 2003 Tobacco Tax Compact with the State. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enforcing the lower rate based on the compact's terms, including its favored nation clause and exceptions tied to proximity to other tribal outlets or state lines. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the injunction against the OTC and therefore vacated it, remanding for further proceedings on the underlying tax dispute arising from 68 O.S. § 346 and the compact's provisions for payment in lieu of taxes on sales to nonmembers.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the petition for reinstatement of Kwame Telli Mumina to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his voluntary resignation in 1997 due to misappropriating about $50,000 from his employer firm and subsequent guilty plea in 2000 to filing a false report in bankruptcy proceedings involving over $100,000 in misused funds. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted the reinstatement upon de novo review, finding that Mumina had shown clear and convincing evidence that his future conduct would meet the bar's high standards. The decision was based on supporting testimony from legal professionals, his acceptance of responsibility, complete restitution to victims, ongoing tax compliance, his strategies for handling stress, and his mentoring of young lawyers to avoid similar issues, while also imposing costs of $2,796.78.

criminal lawprocedure