Robert L. Bailey

The case involved Joel and Jacqueline Beck suing their former employer, Phillips Colleges, Inc., for breach of implied employment contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress following Joel's termination as president of Oklahoma Junior College. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the employer's statements and documents were too vague to create an implied contract of job security, and there was no evidence that Joel was instructed to perform illegal acts or terminated for refusing to do so, nor that Jacqueline was actually discharged.

labor & employmentprocedure

Freedom Ranch, Inc. (FRI) operated a convict pre-release center in Tulsa's Central Business District under contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and sought a special zoning exception after the city determined its facility qualified as a Use Unit 2 rather than a Use Unit 6 transitional living center. The Board of Adjustment denied the exception, and the trial court affirmed following a de novo hearing. FRI appealed, arguing that the zoning code violated equal protection by treating similar facilities differently based on unsubstantiated fears and was unconstitutionally vague for failing to clearly define the relevant uses. The court presumed the validity of the zoning ordinance, applied rational basis review since no suspect class or fundamental right was involved, and held that requiring a special exception for convict pre-release centers rationally advanced the city's legitimate interest in orderly development under its comprehensive plan. The court also found the ordinance not vague because FRI's operations clearly matched the code's description of a pre-release center and affirmed the denial of the exception as supported by the evidence and consistent with the public welfare.

propertycivil rightscriminal law

The case concerned oil and gas companies (Holders) challenging audits and tax assessments by the Oklahoma Tax Commission on retained mineral proceeds under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. The Commission interpreted the Act to require reporting of all current mineral proceeds for an owner if any had been unclaimed for seven years, including those held for title disputes or litigation, while the Holders contended only proceeds unclaimed for the full period were reportable. After partial settlements, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Holders on the validity of Commission rules for "current balance" and "title requirements" issues as conflicting with the Act, but upheld the audits and interest assessments. On appeal, the court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate non-rule issues absent a final Commission order on the protests, reversing those rulings, but proceeded to review the rule-validity claims under the declaratory judgment exception. The opinion analyzed the Act's abandonment presumption, legislative history rejecting a broader amendment, and statutory text limiting reportable property to that unclaimed for over seven years.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a products liability and negligence lawsuit brought by the guardian of three minor children against BIC Corporation and the children's grandparents after the children suffered severe burns from playing with a BIC cigarette lighter in the grandparents' home. A jury awarded the children over $24 million in actual and punitive damages against BIC. On appeal, BIC challenged the denial of post-trial relief, arguing issues including an alleged secret Mary Carter agreement between the plaintiffs and the grandparents' insurer, improper exclusion of expert testimony on product safety, erroneous submission of certain claims to the jury, jury misconduct, improper mention of insurance, and excessive punitive damages. The Court of Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment, finding no Mary Carter agreement existed, the excluded expert testimony was cumulative, certain objections were not preserved, and the remaining claims of error lacked merit or did not warrant reversal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved homeowners suing their insurance company for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith after a fire damaged their residence, disputing the amount paid and the appraisal process under Oklahoma law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the appraisal award binding and no evidence of bad faith. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the statutory appraisal provision is constitutional, that the insurer promptly made payments and required documentation for additional claims as per policy, and that there was no fraud or improper conduct in the appraisal to support a bad faith claim.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Cust-O-Fab v. Bohon, a worker was injured during a pre-employment welding skills test required by the prospective employer and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging an accidental injury arising out of employment. The trial court and a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Court awarded temporary total disability benefits after finding an employer-employee relationship existed. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals vacated the award, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Court lacked jurisdiction because no employer-employee relationship had been established at the time of injury. The court declined to extend coverage to pre-employment testing absent clear statutory authority or Oklahoma precedent, relying on analogous state cases that had denied benefits in similar circumstances where the worker had not yet commenced employment duties.

labor & employment