The case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to adjudicate C.R.G. as a deprived child after the infant sustained rib fractures suspected to result from abuse while in the father's custody. The child was initially removed under an emergency custody order but returned when the State failed to file a timely deprived-child petition; the State then obtained a second emergency order on the same facts, filed a petition, and secured an adjudication of deprived status after a hearing that included medical testimony on abuse. The father appealed, claiming errors including res judicata preclusion of the second proceeding, denial of due process from delayed hearings, improper continuances, and insufficient evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the State could re-file after the initial procedural lapse, the father received adequate process, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a continuance, and competent evidence supported the adjudication. Topics selected reflect the family-law nature of the child-welfare proceeding and the procedural and due-process issues raised on appeal.
In Buckingham v. Buckingham, the wife sought attorney fees after using contempt proceedings to enforce a temporary order in a pending divorce action, where the husband was found guilty of violating the order by failing to make car payments. The trial court awarded the fees under Oklahoma statute, and the husband appealed on the ground that no statute authorized fees for enforcing a pre-decree temporary order. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that 43 O.S. § 110(E) permits awards of attorney fees for enforcement of any interlocutory orders in a dissolution action, including temporary orders, because the statute covers subsequent actions brought after the petition is filed.
The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Joseph Stapleton against his employer, Durant Metal Shredding, for injuries sustained in a physical altercation with a co-employee at work. The Workers' Compensation Court initially found the injury compensable, but on appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals vacated that order. The court determined that the injury resulted from horseplay or similar willful behavior under 85 O.S. § 11(A)(4), as Stapleton was not an innocent victim but rather a voluntary participant who provoked and engaged in the fight, making it non-compensable.
This case was a mortgage foreclosure action filed by CitiFinancial against the Careys after they defaulted on a loan secured by real property. Citi moved for summary judgment, and a hearing was held before Judge Ring, who orally granted the motion but did not enter any written order or minute before retiring; the case was then reassigned to Judge Schumacher, who entered summary judgment and a journal entry based on representations about the prior oral ruling. The Careys appealed, arguing lack of notice and improper procedure. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that a successor judge has no authority to enter judgment based on a predecessor's oral decision absent any record evidence documenting that ruling.
In Griffin v. Cudjoe, plaintiffs Jerry Griffin and Robert Hollis, individually and on behalf of Victory Bible Baptist Church, sued the church's pastor for misusing approximately $100,000 in church funds from a property sale, writing bad checks, failing to pay bills, and spending church money on personal expenses, seeking an accounting, injunctive relief, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, compelled document production, and after hearings awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed, holding that civil courts have jurisdiction over church property disputes that can be resolved by neutral principles of law without resolving religious doctrine, that the plaintiffs had standing as church representatives, and that the record supported the judgment and damages. The decision rejected the pastor's arguments that the matter was an internal ecclesiastical issue or that relief was improperly granted.
In this case, Doris Marler, on behalf of the Nowata Senior Citizens Center, sought a protective order against Steve Kloehr based on allegations of stalking at board meetings, where the parties had no family, household, or dating relationship. The trial court issued an emergency order and later a final order of protection after a hearing. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the statute requires a stalking victim without the specified relationship to file a complaint with law enforcement beforehand and provide a copy at the full hearing, which Marler failed to do. The decision was based solely on this procedural requirement under 22 O.S. Supp. 2009 § 60.2.A.1 and did not reach the sufficiency of the stalking evidence.