Deborah Browers Barnes

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.

family law

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Robert Sill against Hydrohoist International seeking benefits for a cumulative trauma back injury, specifically to cover a 10% preexisting disability finding from a prior order. In 2007, the trial court had awarded Sill compensation for a 2005 on-the-job back injury, including a Crumby finding of 10% unrelated prior impairment; Sill later filed a new claim in 2007 alleging the 10% stemmed from cumulative trauma at work ending in 2006. The trial court denied the new claim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred the claim because the issues were or could have been litigated in the prior proceeding and no new injury was shown.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a student injured during a required weightlifting class when attempting a maximum squat lift to improve on a prior personal record for a grade. The student's parent sued the school district for negligence under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district, finding immunity under a statute exempting liability for losses from participation in athletic contests. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the activity did not constitute an athletic contest because the students were not competing against each other or practicing for such competition, relying on definitions from prior Oklahoma Supreme Court cases interpreting the statute. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liability

The case involved Tracy Moore suing her former employer, Oklahoma State University d/b/a Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, for wrongful constructive discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy under a Burk tort claim. Moore alleged she was forced to resign after reporting what she believed was an unauthorized and fraudulent bank account used for 4-H funds, which violated the employer's internal policies and state finance laws. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding no substantial factual dispute, and Moore appealed on grounds including whether she qualified as an at-will employee and whether her termination violated public policy. On de novo review, the appellate court analyzed the elements of a viable Burk claim, including the existence of a clear public policy in Oklahoma law and the availability of an adequate statutory remedy, and affirmed the judgment.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Ronnie Sallee, an Oklahoma City firefighter, was elected to the Noble School Board in February 2009. The city notified him that serving in that role would violate Article IV, Section 8 of the Oklahoma City Charter, which bars city employees from holding office or employment under the state or another municipality. Sallee sought a permanent injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the charter and terminating his employment. The trial court denied the injunction after finding that a school board is a municipal corporation subject to the charter's dual-office and dual-employment restrictions. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that school board members hold office under state law and therefore the charter prohibits Sallee from holding both positions simultaneously.

labor & employmentelections

The case concerned whether Ted Evans, Jr., a longtime employee of the Oklahoma State Department of Health who oversaw regulation of tattoo businesses, was properly denied unemployment benefits after being fired for misconduct under 40 O.S.2001 § 2-406 due to an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest involving his son's competing tattoo parlor. The Board of Review upheld denial of benefits, but the district court reversed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that reversal. The court held that the undisputed facts did not establish disqualifying misconduct because Evans had verbally disclosed the relationship to a prior supervisor, assumed it was known within the office, and his actions in directing inspections and verifications lacked the required element of willfulness or culpable negligence. The opinion emphasized that mere errors in judgment or failure to follow updated internal policies without conscious wrongdoing do not rise to the statutory standard for misconduct.

labor & employment

This case involved a bank suing a debtor to recover the remaining balance on a promissory note after the debtor defaulted and the bank sold pledged stock collateral at a loss due to market decline. The debtor appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the bank, claiming genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the bank breached a duty to liquidate the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner by failing to monitor the stock's value or sell it earlier. The Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed, finding that the note's terms allowed the bank to delay enforcement of its rights without losing them, that the bank had no duty to sell the depreciating stock sooner absent a specific request, and that the sale at fair market value left no substantial controversy of material facts precluding judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a workers' compensation death benefits claim filed by the widow of an employee who died in 2008, allegedly from complications of a 2005 on-the-job injury that had previously been settled. The dispute centered on which of the employer's successive insurers—C&I (on the risk at the time of the injury) or Travelers (on the risk at the time of death)—would be liable if benefits were awarded. The trial court dismissed Travelers and held C&I responsible, reasoning that a death claim is derivative of the original injury and the insurer at the time of the injury bears the risk; a three-judge panel affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held the order was appealable, sustained the panel's decision on insurer liability, and remanded, citing the legislative intent in 85 O.S. Supp.2006 §§ 11(B) and 64 that the insurer at the time of injury is liable for any resulting death benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure

NBI Services, Inc. appealed orders from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that pooled mineral interests in a 640-acre drilling and spacing unit in Pittsburg County, designated Davis Operating Co. as operator, and required NBI to bear any royalty burdens exceeding 25% on its interest due to non-arm's-length overrides. The OCC had denied NBI's motion to vacate the pooling order after NBI presented a 1981 Joint Operating Agreement that potentially impacted the proceeding. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial and remanded the case to the OCC with instructions to reconsider the pooling order and motion in light of the 1981 JOA to determine whether and to what extent that agreement affects the OCC's prior order, noting that while district courts handle certain contract disputes, the OCC must first assess its own authority.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, Cook's Oilfield Services was sued by Fossil Creek Energy Corporation for negligence and breach of contract after allegedly improper installation of a drilling-fluid mud-pit liner caused leakage at an oil well site in Oklahoma, leading to remediation costs. Cook's sought defense and indemnification from its insurer Admiral under a commercial liability policy, but Admiral denied coverage based on an absolute pollution exclusion and a limited sudden-and-accidental pollution endorsement, citing issues with timing of notice. The trial court granted summary judgment to Admiral, finding no coverage under Texas law and no duty to defend or indemnify. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the discharge was sudden and accidental and whether the occurrence was timely reported, requiring remand for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproceduretorts & liability

The Grayhorse group of working interest owners sued Crawley Petroleum, the operator of an Oklahoma oil and gas well, in district court for money damages under theories of conversion, negligence, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment, alleging Crawley wrongfully used their casing, pipe, and wellbore to recomplete the well in a new formation after the group declined to participate. Crawley moved to dismiss, arguing that a prior forced-pooling order from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission gave that agency exclusive jurisdiction and that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the order. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that district courts alone have authority to adjudicate private rights disputes seeking damages in mineral and leasehold matters, while the OCC lacks power to entertain damage claims even though it exercises many court-like powers in regulatory contexts.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between homeowners and builders over the construction of a residence in Canadian County, Oklahoma. The builders moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the parties' Residential Construction Agreement that required submission of all disputes to binding arbitration pursuant to procedures established by the Central Oklahoma HomeBuilder's Association. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the contract unambiguously limited arbitration to those specific, non-existent procedures, so the clause could not be enforced or rewritten to substitute other arbitration rules such as the Uniform Arbitration Act; the parties' intent had to be determined from the four corners of the unambiguous agreement.

procedure

This case involves a manufacturing company, Hearn, suing its former employees Clouatre and Jay, along with their new employer Sooner Perforations and its owner Goforth, for breaching confidentiality agreements and misappropriating trade secrets related to pipe perforation processes and customer information. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants on claims including breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and conversion, and denied Hearn's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment and new trial denial, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the use of confidential information and trade secrets. The decision was based on de novo review of the record, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which showed disputed evidence preventing summary resolution under Oklahoma law.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

Ken Shepherd, an Oklahoma resident, purchased a Kawasaki motorcycle in Texas in 2007 and, after unsuccessful repair attempts in Texas and Mexico, sued Kawasaki in Oklahoma for breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded. The appellate court held that Kawasaki waived the forum non conveniens defense by failing to raise it in its answer or at the earliest stage of the proceedings, as required by Oklahoma procedural rules on venue challenges, and instead waiting nearly five months to file its motion to dismiss.

procedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Edith Jane Wilcoxson against her employer, Woodward County EMS, for injuries sustained while transferring a patient in 2006. She initially claimed a low back injury and later amended her claim to include a neck injury, seeking temporary total disability (TTD) benefits beyond the eight weeks awarded by the trial court and affirmed by a three-judge panel. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the order, holding that the neck injury qualified as a nonsurgical soft tissue injury under 85 O.S. Supp.2005 § 22(3)(d), which caps TTD benefits at eight weeks absent surgery, and that the employer's statute of limitations defense had been waived. The court reasoned that medical evidence showed disc bulges but no neck surgery or recommendation for it, distinguishing the neck claim from the separately treated lumbar injury.

labor & employmentprocedure