Tom Colbert

Bird Construction Company sued the Oklahoma City Housing Authority for breach of contract and libel after OCHA terminated their 1994 agreement to rehabilitate a housing project and sent letters to Bird's bonding company blaming Bird for delays and failures, which allegedly prevented Bird from obtaining future bonds. A jury awarded Bird damages totaling over $394,000, but the trial court capped the libel portion at $175,000, denied attorney fees, and prohibited execution on the judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the verdict in most respects but reversed in part, holding that the libel award must be capped at the $100,000 statutory limit under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, that prejudgment interest was unavailable on the contract claim and both prejudgment and post-judgment interest unavailable on the tort claim, and that Bird could execute the judgment using the proper statutory mechanisms for claims against governmental entities; the case was remanded for an attorney-fee hearing and entry of a corrected judgment.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved homeowners Eric and Anna Pope suing the City of Weatherford for property damage from a sewage line overflow into their home in November 2002. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred under the Governmental Tort Claims Act because the notice of claim was filed in November 2002, deemed denied 90 days later, and the lawsuit was not filed within the subsequent 180-day period. The district court granted summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, holding that inferences from the undisputed facts—specifically, whether the City requested additional damage information that could restart the 90-day review period—created a material factual issue precluding a ruling as a matter of law on timeliness. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine the effective dates of the claim and denial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Worldlogics Corporation suing Chatham Reinsurance Corporation for bad faith refusal to timely investigate and pay on a performance bond after a contractor failed to complete construction work. Worldlogics had paid for the bond and was named as the obligee. The district court denied Chatham's motions for judgment as a matter of law, and a jury awarded damages to Worldlogics on the tort claim. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that a surety owes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to the obligee under the bond contract and that breach of this duty can support a tort claim for bad faith, given the surety's financial incentive to delay payment similar to an insurer. The decision rested on Oklahoma law recognizing the implied duty in every contract and extending bad faith tort principles to this surety context.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Brian Wilson, a Tulsa police officer terminated after an internal investigation into a theft complaint during an arrest. He successfully grieved the termination through arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police and was reinstated. Wilson then sued the City of Tulsa and the former police chief for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and free speech rights, defamation via a press release, and related claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that issue preclusion from the arbitration barred certain claims, there was no evidence supporting defamation or constitutional violations, and the termination decision did not give rise to the asserted tort or constitutional claims.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rightstorts & liability

The case concerned Shawn Horvat, a classified state employee demoted by the Department of Corrections, who mailed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Merit Protection Commission (MPC) but had it dismissed as untimely under MPC rules deeming an appeal filed only upon receipt. Horvat sought judicial review and a declaratory judgment that the MPC rule violated the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the rule violated article 5, section 46 of the state constitution, which prohibits special laws regulating practice before courts, commissioners, or other tribunals and requires symmetrical appellate procedures. The court reasoned that the mailbox rule used for Supreme Court appeals eliminates geographic disadvantages and must apply equally to administrative appeals to the MPC as a tribunal, with no countervailing burden shown on the agency.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute between an Oklahoma resident and a California resident over extra costs incurred when specially manufactured hoses, sold as part of a plane purchase, did not fit properly. The plaintiff sued in Oklahoma small claims court, and the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that it had in personam jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The decision rested on the defendant's travel to Oklahoma to negotiate and enter into the oral contract at issue, which established sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction, and on the determination that exercising jurisdiction comported with fair play and substantial justice.

procedure

The case concerned a personal injury lawsuit filed by Tom and Bertha Tisdale after Tom was injured at work by a malfunctioning nail gun in March 2000. The Tisdales initially sued other defendants and later amended their petition in September 2002 to substitute ITW as a defendant after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The district court dismissed the claim against ITW as time-barred. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, ruling that summary judgment was improper because factual issues existed as to whether the amended petition related back to the original filing date under 12 O.S. § 2015(C), including whether ITW received timely notice and knew or should have known of any mistake in party identity.

proceduretorts & liability

In Newton v. Newton, former spouses William and Gayle Newton disputed the division of proceeds from the sale of their former marital home in a partition action after the property was sold at auction. The trial court granted Plaintiff credit for half the mortgage, tax, and insurance payments made after the parties' daughter turned 18 (when Defendant's occupancy rights under the divorce decree ended) but declined to make further equitable adjustments or setoffs for earlier payments. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that the 1990 divorce decree—which awarded Plaintiff full ownership and required him to make all payments while allowing Defendant rent-free occupancy—remained controlling, that Plaintiff's later conveyance of a half-interest did not amend those obligations, and that the trial court's refusal to retroactively readjust the decree's terms was neither against the weight of the evidence nor contrary to law or equity principles. The court noted that Plaintiff had never sought modification of the decree despite multiple prior proceedings.

family lawproperty

The case involved an ophthalmologist whose clinical privileges at a private nonprofit hospital were summarily suspended and ultimately revoked after he took medication before performing surgeries that caused an adverse reaction. He sued the hospital, its medical executive committee, board of directors, an affiliate hospital, and individual physicians and administrators, alleging wrongful termination, malicious interference with contract, breach of procedural fairness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of confidentiality, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. The trial court granted partial summary adjudication to the defendants, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over the hospital's staffing decisions, and denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under binding precedent, Oklahoma courts have no jurisdiction to review staffing decisions by private nonprofit hospitals because such actions do not constitute state action, and the individual claims were likewise barred as they arose from the hospital's decision.

healthcarelabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Brenda Fleming sought review of an order from the workers' compensation court denying her 2002 motion to reopen her claim based on a change in condition, on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations under 85 O.S.2001 § 43(C). The court had previously awarded her permanent partial disability benefits in 1991, with an order for continuing medical care including prescriptions in 1995, and a 1998 miscellaneous order reimbursing specific prescription expenses. The appellate court sustained the denial, holding that the 1998 order did not qualify as the 'last order' starting the limitations period because it merely clarified the existing benefits without substantially affecting the range of monetary, medical, or rehabilitative benefits, as required by precedent in Arrow Tool & Gauge v. Mead. The relevant facts were undisputed, making the issue one of law reviewed de novo.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Cleveland v. Dyn-A-Mite Pest Control, Inc., homeowners sued a pest control company for negligence and deceit after discovering extensive termite damage in their newly purchased home; the company had issued a wood-destroying insect report stating no visible infestation while noting prior treatment but without disclosing multiple past infestations and treatments on the property. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the negligence and deceit claims, awarding $73,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, while the trial court denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the company had a duty to disclose the treatment history it possessed in its files, that evidence supported the jury's findings on breach and causation, and that a prior release agreement did not bar the claims because it did not address the undisclosed history. The court rejected arguments that the release broadly covered future claims or that the company owed no duty to the buyers.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved the termination of Sheri L. Hadley's parental rights to her four children after they were adjudicated deprived in 1999 based on allegations including positive drug tests, neglect, unstable housing, and abandonment. The trial court granted termination on grounds that the mother failed to complete her court-ordered treatment plan, did not pay child support, and the children had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that the State had not met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's best interests, given the presumption favoring family integrity and the constitutional protections for parental rights.

family law

The case involved the Department of Public Safety's appeal of a trial court order that set aside the revocation of Danny Dahl's driver's license following a DUI arrest. The trial court had ruled the arrest invalid because a local police officer stopped Dahl outside his jurisdiction without personally observing a violation, the fellow-officer rule did not apply, and no citizen's arrest occurred. The appellate court reversed, holding that the local officer was acting at the direct request and direction of an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper investigating a reckless-driving report, thereby deriving authority to make the stop under state law; the trooper's subsequent observations and information from the stop then provided probable cause for the DUI arrest. As a result, the revocation was upheld and the trial court's decision was reversed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hull v. Wellston Independent School District, a student suffered permanent injuries including an intra-cerebral hemorrhage during a high school football practice game, and his mother sued the school district alleging negligence by coaches in allowing participation without parental consent, a required medical exam, proper equipment, and adequate training or emergency procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the Governmental Tort Claims Act's exemption under 51 O.S. Supp.2000 § 155(20) for claims arising from participation in or practice for interscholastic athletic contests sponsored by a political subdivision applies strictly and bars the claims, as established by precedents like Curtis and Evans, even where willful or wanton conduct by employees was alleged. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment due to outside materials and found no genuine issues of material fact on the legal applicability of the immunity provision.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a mother's appeal of a district court order terminating her parental rights to her child T.D. and awarding custody to the father, following the child's adjudication as deprived based on allegations of physical abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse in the mother's home. The termination stemmed from a mediation agreement in which the mother voluntarily agreed to relinquish her rights subject to conditions such as independent professional approval of the placement and provisions for possible future visitation. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the placement with the father as in the child's best interest but reversed the termination order, concluding that the trial court must ensure the mother's agreement was voluntary and made with full knowledge of its effects under state law or alternatively pursue involuntary termination, and remanded for further limited proceedings.

family law

The case concerned whether the Mayor of Tulsa could initiate pre-termination proceedings against three police officers who had already been suspended without pay by the Police Chief for misconduct during an arrest outside city limits. The Fraternal Order of Police sought and obtained a temporary injunction barring the Mayor from conducting those hearings, arguing that the prior discipline had become final under the City Charter and that further action would violate the collective bargaining agreement and other rules. The trial court asserted jurisdiction and granted the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no error because the question of the Mayor's authority to act could be addressed directly by the court rather than through arbitration and because the officers' suspensions had already become final. The court noted that the Mayor had delegated disciplinary authority to the Chief and that additional punishment based on witness credibility concerns was not authorized once the initial discipline was imposed.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Broadway Medical Center seeking to enforce a physician's lien against settlement funds paid by the State of Oklahoma to a patient injured by a state employee in a car accident. The district court dismissed the action, ruling the lien unenforceable against the state, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Oklahoma law prohibits liens on public property under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, and the settlement funds retained their character as public property while in the state's possession. General garnishment statutes addressing state debts do not override the specific statutory bar on liens arising from the state's tort liability.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure