Carol M. Hansen

In this case, father Lemont Gardner appealed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to three children under Oklahoma's deprived child statutes. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination, holding that neither the jury verdict nor the judgment contained all findings required by 10 O.S.Supp.2009 § 1-4-904(B)(5) and Subsection A. Specifically, the verdict and order failed to state that the father had been given at least three months to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication or that termination was in the children's best interests, both of which are mandatory statutory prerequisites. The court emphasized that termination of parental rights must strictly comply with statutory requirements to protect the fundamental right to parent.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by mineral and leasehold interest owner Ann Drummond Woolley to an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission that granted Pontotoc Production Company's application to pool the McAlester and Hunton formations in a specified drilling unit. Woolley argued that the Commission should have dismissed the pooling application as to the known dry Hunton formation, that the Commission's allocation of drilling costs between the two formations was improper, and that Woolley should have been permitted to share in acreage force-pooled from non-participating owners under prior pooling orders from which Woolley was omitted due to a title error by Pontotoc. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Commission's refusal to dismiss the Hunton pooling and its cost allocation method, finding both consistent with the pooling statute and supported by substantial evidence, but reversed on the force-pooled acreage issue. The court held that the right to share in such acreage is an equitable right arising from an election to participate in the well and that Pontotoc could not retain Woolley's share based on its own title mistake. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the acreage-sharing question.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Scott Sexton sued KIPP Reach Academy Charter School and its principal for breach of an implied employment contract after the school rescinded a job offer upon learning of his sexual orientation. Sexton alleged that communications, a letter of intent specifying salary and terms, issuance of a cell phone, and enrollment in a conference formed an implied one-year contract terminable only for cause. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, finding no employment contract existed. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that the allegations of mutual intent, essential terms, and reasonable reliance sufficiently pleaded the existence of an implied contract under Oklahoma law, making the breach claim legally sufficient.

labor & employment

This case involves a divorce proceeding between Melissa Johnson (Wife) and Scott Johnson (Husband), initiated in 2009, concerning custody of their two sons, division of marital property including two vehicles, alimony payments, and the status of a protective order issued in a separate case. The trial court awarded custody to Wife, classified the vehicles as marital property to be sold with proceeds divided equally, ordered alimony in lieu of support, and directed that the protective order remain in effect for three years. On appeal from the denial of Husband's motion for new trial, the court affirmed the custody, property division, and alimony determinations, finding no abuse of discretion and that the vehicles were properly treated as jointly owned based on titles and testimony. However, it reversed the portion extending the protective order, holding that the divorce judge lacked authority under 22 O.S. Supp.2008 § 60.2A to modify or extend an order from a separate protective order action with its own docket. The matter was remanded to vacate that specific provision of the decree.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Karhleya Camp sought benefits for cumulative trauma injuries to her arms, shoulders, and neck from repetitive work tasks at Curwood Inc., after previously settling a claim for a single-event hand injury in 2009. The trial court rejected the employer's defenses, including res judicata based on the prior joint petition settlement and lack of timely notice, and awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment; a three-judge panel affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals sustained the order, holding that the earlier settlement covered only the hands from a single incident as shown by the hearing transcript, that cumulative trauma claims are distinct, and that other issues like notice were not properly preserved for review. The court applied the competent evidence standard and noted the trial tribunal's role in assessing credibility.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Okmulgee County Rural Water District No. 2 and Beggs Public Works Authority over a 2004 water purchase contract that the Authority claimed was invalid due to its own failure to provide required notice under the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Authority on that ground and later denied its request for attorney fees as the prevailing party under 12 O.S. §936, citing the Authority's willful violation and equitable principles that one should not benefit from unlawful acts. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals held that an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract for the sale of goods is mandatory under the statute and that common-law defenses such as in pari delicto do not create an exception or allow the trial court to withhold fees based on the prevailing party's conduct. The court reviewed the legal authorization for fees de novo and reversed the denial.

business & regulatoryprocedure