This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate the parental rights of Rebecca Mireles (Mother) and James Moody (Father) regarding their child L.M., who had been adjudicated deprived due to unsafe living conditions, Mother's mental health issues, and related concerns. A jury found that Mother had a mental illness and that both parents failed to correct the conditions leading to L.M.'s deprived status, leading the trial court to terminate their rights. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the termination order as to Mother and remanded for a new trial due to errors in the proceedings, while affirming the order as to Father because it was supported by clear and convincing evidence, though it remanded to address a deficiency in the order. The court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard for parental termination cases, reviewing the record for whether a factfinder could form a firm belief in the grounds for termination.
In Barnett v. Simmons, Rock Oil appealed the trial court's denial of attorney fees and costs in discovery sanction proceedings arising from a lawsuit in which Barnett alleged unpaid royalties and other claims related to an oil lease operated by Rock Oil. After Barnett's computer hard drive was altered following a court order compelling production of electronic files, the trial court found he had violated the order and his duty to preserve evidence but determined he was substantially justified in his actions and that an award of fees would be unjust. The appellate court reviewed the record under an abuse of discretion standard and affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court's ruling was not contrary to the weight of the evidence or governing law.
In Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v. B3, Inc., the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its commercial general liability policy issued to B3 provided no coverage for liability arising from a lawsuit by landowners alleging property and water damage from the discharge of wastewater containing sewage and contaminants during improvements to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. B3 and its subcontractor NRS had been hired to perform the work, which involved pumping from sewage lagoons, and NRS claimed it was entitled to coverage as a third-party beneficiary. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer based on the policy's total pollution exclusion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding the exclusion was unambiguous on its face, the discharged materials met the policy's definition of pollutants, and the underlying claims fell squarely within the excluded risks.
This case involved a dispute over the appointment of a guardian for V. Inez Songer, an incapacitated adult. Her son, Jimmy Songer, objected to a petition by Steve and Amber Austin (grandchildren through another relative) seeking guardianship after the ward moved in with them, and he sought appointment for himself instead. The trial court granted guardianship to the Austins following a hearing. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that while 30 O.S. § 3-104(A) provides statutory priorities for guardian selection, the statute does not require strict adherence without considering the ward's best interests under § 3-104(C), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the evidence of care and suitability.
The case involved Oklahoma taxpayers Joseph and Margaret Grasso protesting additional state income tax assessments for 2003 through 2006, primarily concerning whether the husband's income from Florida should be included on their Oklahoma returns given his claimed non-resident status. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Tax Commission's finding that the husband was domiciled in Florida but reversed its determination that the couple's joint Oklahoma tax returns required inclusion of the husband's Florida income. The court reasoned that the Tax Commission's reliance on joint filing as a basis for taxation constituted a new issue raised without proper notice, violating procedural due process, and lacked supporting evidence in the record. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on issues including potential refunds and amendments to returns.
This case involved Oklahoma taxpayers Joseph and Margaret Grasso challenging additional state income tax assessments by the Oklahoma Tax Commission for tax years 2003-2006, primarily over whether the husband's Florida income could be taxed by Oklahoma. The Tax Commission had denied their protest after determining the couple's filing of joint Oklahoma returns required inclusion of the husband's income despite his claimed non-resident status. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Commission's finding that the husband's domicile was Florida but reversed its ruling on the joint-return issue, holding that the Commission had improperly raised it as a new issue without notice, violating procedural due process, and that the determination lacked evidentiary support; as a result, the assessments were erroneous, including on statute-of-limitations grounds for 2003. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on related claims such as refunds and amended returns.