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

The case involved Casey Richards challenging the revocation of his driver's license by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety following a breathalyzer test that showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.17 after a car accident. Richards argued there was no probable cause for his arrest and that the breathalyzer results were improperly admitted due to issues with testing procedures, equipment approval, and maintenance. The trial court upheld the revocation, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officer had reasonable grounds for the arrest based on observed signs of intoxication and that competent evidence supported proper administration and maintenance of the test equipment under Board of Tests rules. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Linear Films, an Oklahoma corporation with manufacturing plants in Oklahoma and Kentucky, sought refunds of corporate income taxes paid to the state on sales of plastic films shipped to customers in other states. The Oklahoma Tax Commission denied the refunds after determining that the company's use of independent contractors to solicit orders in those states did not qualify as "doing business" under 68 O.S. 1991 § 2358(A)(5)(c)(1) or federal Public Law 86-272, which protects purely solicitational interstate activities from state net income taxation. The court affirmed the denial, concluding that the sales were properly thrown back to Oklahoma for taxation purposes because the destination states lacked authority to impose tax on the income.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an insurance company's subrogation action against a tenant for fire damage to a rental house caused by the tenant's negligence in starting a grease fire, after the insurer had paid the claim to the landlord-parents. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied the tenant's motion for new trial. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the insurer had no subrogation claim against the tenant. The decision followed prior precedent establishing that a landlord and tenant are essentially co-insureds under the landlord's policy, absent an agreement to the contrary, so the insurer could not recover from the tenant for damages to the rented premises.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs injured in a 1988 car accident who sued both the at-fault driver and their uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance carrier. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' request, made months after the scheduling deadline, to amend their complaint to add a bad faith claim against the insurer and ordered bifurcation of the trial between claims against the driver and the insurer. After a jury awarded one plaintiff damages below the driver's liability limits, the plaintiffs appealed only the denial of amendment and the bifurcation order. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in enforcing the pre-trial schedule or in the bifurcation rulings, and noting that the jury verdict undermined any potential bad faith claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Morin v. Coral Swimming Pool Supply Co., the plaintiffs sought damages for severe personal injuries Thomas Morin sustained in 1988 while diving into a swimming pool built by the defendant in 1967, asserting claims under negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty theories. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant based on Oklahoma's ten-year statute of repose (12 O.S. § 109), which barred the claims, and later denied the plaintiffs' motions to reopen the judgment or for a new trial after they raised constitutional challenges to the statute under the Equal Protection Clause and the Oklahoma Constitution. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the statute of repose was constitutional as amended and applied to builders like the defendant, that no material facts were in dispute regarding the defendant's role, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery or evidence on the legal issues. The decision rested on prior Oklahoma Supreme Court precedents upholding the statute and the lack of evidence controverting the defendant's status as a builder entitled to repose protection.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned Pamela Joffe’s suit, as personal representative of her late husband Robert’s estate, against KOTV anchor Clayton Vaughn, news director David Cassidy, reporter Mark Bogatay, and KOTV for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Robert, a longtime KOTV reporter and co-anchor, was suspended and then terminated after Vaughn relayed an unverified allegation of a homosexual liaison; Robert was not told the source, could not clear his name, and ultimately took his own life. The jury returned a $4 million verdict ($2 million actual, $2 million punitive), and the trial court denied the defendants’ demurrer, directed-verdict, JNOV, and new-trial motions. On appeal the court examined whether the evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct was sufficient to reach the jury under Oklahoma standards for those motions and reviewed related evidentiary rulings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Tipton v. Oklahoma Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass'n, the case concerned whether the Oklahoma Property and Casualty Guaranty Association, as successor to a bankrupt workers' compensation insurer, was entitled to full credit for a claimant's $50,000 third-party tort settlement against approximately $60,000 in benefits already paid. The trial court ruled that the Fund had received a just and reasonable apportionment under 85 O.S. § 44 and denied any additional credit against future benefits. The court based this on stipulated facts showing the Fund recovered $10,777.79 (about 18% of benefits paid) plus half the net settlement proceeds after fees, which satisfied the statute's goal of protecting subrogation rights without double recovery for the claimant.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Josephine Garrett, a certified teacher who sought retirement credit from the Oklahoma Teachers’ Retirement System (OTRS) Board for eight years she worked as a substitute teacher exceeding 120 days annually. After initially approving the credit and accepting Garrett’s payment, the Board reversed its position following an audit, asserting substitute teachers were ineligible, and denied the benefits; Garrett appealed the denial through administrative channels to the trial court. The trial court vacated the Board’s decision as arbitrary and capricious, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the Board had inconsistently applied its own ambiguous rules, created confusion among members about eligibility, accepted payment based on its prior determination, and reversed only after an administrative change while Garrett had reasonably relied on the approval.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision's disciplinary action against a licensed physician whose Florida medical license application had been denied. The Board suspended the doctor's Oklahoma license for two months and imposed five years of supervised probation after finding improper drug prescriptions without patient examinations or relationships, plus the Florida denial based on chemical dependency concerns. The doctor appealed, claiming insufficient competent evidence. The court affirmed the Board's order, concluding that the record contained uncontroverted evidence of unprofessional conduct under state statutes and that the Board had properly considered the Florida findings after giving the doctor a chance to rebut them.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Riedel v. Riedel, the case involved post-divorce proceedings where the husband was held in contempt for failing to indemnify the wife against liability on a marital debt allocated to him in the 1989 divorce decree, after he obtained a bankruptcy discharge of the underlying debt without listing the wife as a creditor under the hold-harmless provision; the wife also sought an increase in child support. The trial court denied the husband's motion to dismiss the contempt application, found him in contempt (with a deferred sentence conditioned on payments), and granted a modest upward modification of child support by applying the guidelines without deviation. The court reasoned that the decree's debt allocation was directly tied to the husband's child support obligation—evidenced by the original deviation from guidelines in consideration of the debts—making the indemnity obligation in the nature of support and thus enforceable by contempt despite the bankruptcy discharge. It further determined that a material change in circumstances supported modifying child support to the guideline amount.

family law

In Sigma Resources Corp. v. Norse Exploration, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of an alleged joint venture agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of business opportunity, tortious interference, and conspiracy after the defendants acquired mineral assets from a bankrupt estate without the plaintiff's participation following initial negotiations between Sigma and one Norse entity. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no joint venture agreement had been formed or signed, that the Statute of Frauds required a writing, and that no fiduciary relationship or conspiracy existed. The appellate court reversed, determining that material facts remained in dispute as to whether a joint venture existed based on the parties' letter agreement and subsequent conduct, which can establish such a relationship without a formal writing.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved guarantors of a promissory note secured by a mortgage on real property who appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the bank, seeking an offset equal to the fair market value of the mortgaged property under 12 O.S. § 686. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the guarantors' agreements expressly waived any right to set-off and that such waivers were enforceable. The reasoning centered on the principle that guaranty obligations are separate, collateral contractual duties governed by their specific terms rather than the anti-deficiency provisions of § 686, which apply only to direct debtor-creditor relationships; the waivers did not violate public policy, statutes, or constitutional protections for court access. The guaranties provided for absolute and unconditional liability, allowing the bank to proceed directly against the guarantors without first liquidating collateral.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Tamma R. Lewis, a temporary employee placed by Manpower at OPUBCO, who injured her knee while participating in a tug-of-war event as part of the OPUBCO team in the Corporate Challenge amateur sporting competition. The trial court awarded benefits after finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because OPUBCO supervisors had encouraged or induced her participation. Manpower appealed, arguing that the recreational activity was voluntary, unrelated to her work for Manpower, and unknown to Manpower. The appellate court affirmed the award, reasoning that the special employer's inducement brought the activity within the course of employment and that Manpower, as the general employer responsible for wages and insurance, remained liable for the injury under workers' compensation law.

labor & employment

The case involved a medical negligence claim by Ronda Scribner against Hillcrest Medical Center after hospital staff mistakenly took her for an ultrasound procedure hours after her hysterectomy, ignoring her protests and failing to check her identity, which allegedly caused an incisional dehiscence and hernia requiring further surgery. A jury awarded her $100,000 in actual damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages, which the hospital appealed on grounds including insufficient proof of causation, improper jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur and punitive damages, and excessiveness of the punitive award. The court rejected the challenge to causation evidence, holding that it would not reweigh the testimony of the patient's qualified experts. The opinion further addressed the submission of punitive damages to the jury based on evidence of the hospital's reckless disregard for patient identification procedures and considered arguments regarding the award's size and potential improper influences on the jury.

torts & liabilityhealthcare