Jane P. Wiseman

The case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners, the Barretts and the Humphreys, over whether the Barretts held an easement for ingress, egress, and utilities across the Humphreys' land, and whether the Humphreys had negligently obstructed or damaged a bridge on the roadway by storing items like lids that allegedly caused flooding and harm. The Barretts sued for trespass and damages, while the Humphreys counterclaimed for trespass, and the trial court found that the Barretts had established an easement in a prior 1982 case and awarded damages based on negligence. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, concluding that the record did not support the trial court's finding that an easement had been proven or previously established, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the Humphreys' motion to reconsider.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a pro se plaintiff, an incarcerated inmate serving as executor of his mother's estate, who filed a replevin action seeking to recover personal property allegedly taken by defendants connected to a funeral home. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice, citing the plaintiff's failure to comply with statutory requirements for inmate-initiated civil actions under 12 O.S. § 2003.1 (or related sections like 2008.1) and related procedural shortcomings such as lack of proper service. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal order, determining that while compliance with the inmate pleading statute is required, dismissal with prejudice was not warranted and the case should proceed after allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to meet the statutory mandates, with directions on handling summons and other issues.

procedureproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Danny Ray Watson against his employer, Tyson Foods, for a 2004 knee injury. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits and rejected the employer's statute of limitations defense under 85 O.S. § 43(B), a decision affirmed by a three-judge panel. On appeal, the court vacated the award and remanded for dismissal, holding that the claimant failed to take positive action in good faith to request a hearing and final determination within the three-year limitation period after the 2007 order denying temporary benefits. The court reasoned that settlement conference requests, a miscellaneous order denying dismissal, and other filings did not toll the statute, distinguishing prior cases where specific court actions like appointing a medical examiner had done so.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved former attorneys for plaintiff Michael Anderson appealing the trial court's denial of their motion to vacate an order dismissing Anderson's medical malpractice lawsuit against Access Medical Centers and others. The attorneys sought to vacate the dismissal, which was entered due to failure to cooperate in discovery, arguing irregularities in the process, but they filed the motion after the plaintiff had retained new counsel and without his authorization. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the attorneys lacked standing because they no longer represented the plaintiff and had no independent legally protected interest in the outcome.

procedure

This case involved two former employees of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission who brought a qui tam action to recover public funds paid out through settlement agreements from the Petroleum Storage Tank Release Environmental Cleanup Indemnity Fund, claiming the underlying claims were improper. State law requires a written demand signed and verified by ten resident taxpayers as a prerequisite to filing such an action, but one of the ten signatures on the demand was not properly verified before a notary or equivalent. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the demand was defective, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, concluding that the statute demands strict compliance with the verification requirement and that the defect could not be cured mid-litigation.

environmentprocedure

The case involved a post-divorce dispute over division of the husband's military retirement benefits from a 1999 decree between Brian Galarza and Eunice Denise Galarza. Years later, the wife sought a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and an order nunc pro tunc to correct language in the decree that had omitted adequate provisions for dividing the retirement pay due to a scrivener's error. The trial court granted the motions after finding the decree's intent clear and unambiguous, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the corrections clarified rather than modified the final property division and that the court had jurisdiction to enter such orders without violating time limits on modifying judgments.

family lawpropertyprocedure