The case involved unmarried parents disputing custody arrangements for their child, with Father seeking to modify the existing joint custody decree to sole custody based on alleged injuries to the child, to relocate with the child out of state, and to hold Mother in indirect contempt for failing to pay child support. The trial court awarded the parties joint custody, denied Father's relocation motion without prejudice, found Mother not guilty of contempt but ordered her to pay $3,874.48 in arrears, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the record showed no material change of circumstances warranting modification of custody, that Father had not met the requirements for relocation under the decree and statutes, and that the evidence did not support a contempt finding. The decisions were upheld as not against the weight of the evidence under applicable family law standards.
This case concerned an employer's appeal of a workers' compensation award granting permanent total disability benefits to claimant Patrick Greer following a 2007 workplace neck injury. After an initial remand for vocational rehabilitation, the trial court found Greer had made a good-faith effort but remained unemployable based on medical and instructor reports, and awarded retroactive PTD benefits; a three-judge panel affirmed. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the panel's order, holding that its prior opinion had reserved rather than precluded a PTD determination and that the award was not contrary to law.
This case is a divorce appeal in which Husband challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's dissolution decree and related orders, including the denial of a venue transfer from Creek County to Pittsburg County, permission for Wife to relocate with the children to Pennsylvania, the division of marital property, awards of support alimony and child support, supervised visitation requirements, and attorney fees. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decree as modified, upheld the attorney fee award to Wife, and granted her request for appeal-related fees while remanding for further proceedings. The court determined that venue was properly laid and not waived by Husband's earlier participation, that sole custody to Wife and relocation served the children's best interests, and that the financial and visitation provisions were supported by the evidence and applicable law.
In this eminent domain case, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation condemned a portion of the Wolfes' property for a highway project, which left the property landlocked, and separately condemned neighboring property owned by the Askins to create an access easement for the Wolfes. The Wolfes objected to the commissioners' award, arguing that DOT lacked constitutional authority to take the Askins' property for what they claimed was a private purpose and that they should receive additional compensation for the landlocked condition. The trial court overruled the objection after DOT granted a perpetual easement, finding the condemnation consistent with state constitutional provisions for private ways of necessity. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the Wolfes' challenge to DOT's authority over the Askins' property was not justiciable in this proceeding and that the Wolfes could not vicariously assert the Askins' constitutional rights. The court therefore upheld the denial of the objection to the commissioners' award.
This case concerned a divorce between Susan Warner Hanger and Robert Edward Hanger, who had two minor children, after Wife filed for divorce in Minnesota and Husband filed in Oklahoma, resulting in conflicting child support orders from the two states. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's Decree of Divorce. The court determined that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Oklahoma court lacked authority to enter a child support order because Minnesota had properly established jurisdiction as the children's home state after resolving the residency facts, and it also corrected an aspect of the marital property debt division.
This case involves unmarried parents disputing custody and visitation of their child born in 2002, with Mother holding legal custody and Father seeking modifications through multiple motions filed between 2004 and 2008. Father ultimately withdrew or settled his requests, including a motion to modify custody and various applications for evaluations and a guardian ad litem, leading to an agreed journal entry in May 2009 that maintained custody with Mother but adjusted visitation. Mother then sought attorney's fees, alleging Father unnecessarily prolonged the litigation, and the trial court granted her application in part. On appeal, Father challenged the fee award, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees based on the circumstances of the proceedings.