Allen Edward Barrow

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee's challenge to General Motors Acceptance Corporation's claimed security interest in a vehicle purchased by the bankrupt in New York, where the lien was noted on a New York certificate of title. After the bankrupt moved to Oklahoma and obtained an Oklahoma title without surrendering the New York one, GMAC did not file any financing statements in Oklahoma. The court affirmed the bankruptcy judge's ruling that the New York notation did not maintain a perfected security interest under Oklahoma's version of the UCC, specifically 12A O.S. § 9-103(3) and (4), because issuance of the Oklahoma title required compliance with Oklahoma perfection rules, which had not occurred by the time of bankruptcy. The decision turned on the principle that only one certificate of title controls perfection and that the creditor must follow the law of the new state once a local title is issued.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Hunt v. Democratic Party of Oklahoma, registered Democratic voters and some elected state legislators sued the state Democratic Party, alleging that its geographically based delegate and central committee structure violated the one-person, one-vote principle and diluted urban (including Black) voters' influence in party affairs and nominations. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion reasoned that Oklahoma political parties are voluntary organizations governed by state statutes that were not challenged as unconstitutional, that no present controversy or imminent violation existed to create federal jurisdiction, and that federal courts should abstain absent a ripe dispute rather than intervene in internal party matters.

electionscivil rightsfederal power

The case centered on a dispute over title to real property in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, where the plaintiff, invoking a 1947 federal statute restricting alienation of inherited land by members of the Five Civilized Tribes, sought to cancel her 1965 deed and subsequent conveyances and to eject the defendants in possession. The defendants counterclaimed to quiet their titles derived from that deed. Following a trial on the merits with evidence that differed from earlier preliminary injunction proceedings, the court ruled for the defendants, quieting their titles to the property and directing the trustee to deliver possession to them while denying the plaintiff's claims. The decision rested on findings that the statutory approval requirements did not invalidate the chain of title under the facts presented and that no equitable adjustment favoring the plaintiff was warranted.

propertyfederal power

This case involved an indictment against Phillips Petroleum Company and executives for violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7206, charging that they willfully omitted commission income from Triton Shipping and technical service fee income from Cochin Refineries on corporate tax returns for 1969-1971. Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment for grand jury abuse, alleging prosecutors withheld exculpatory evening testimony from witness James Akright, which attributed the omissions to carelessness rather than bad intent and was recorded as part of the grand jury record. The court found this withholding an abuse because the evidence directly bore on the required element of willful intent under the tax statutes and was not presented to the grand jurors despite being taken outside their presence. It therefore dismissed the indictment, while declining to reach a separate claim of misuse as an open-ended grand jury.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

The case involved a motion by Phillips Petroleum Company and its officers to dismiss Count I of a 1976 indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to defraud the IRS by concealing over $2.6 million in funds through Swiss accounts and unreported corporate payments from 1962 to 1973. The defendants argued that the charge breached a 1973 plea agreement reached with the Watergate Special Prosecutor, under which Phillips and Keeler pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of 18 U.S.C. § 610 for illegal campaign contributions in exchange for no further Title 18 prosecutions based on the voluntarily disclosed conduct. The court found that the government was not completely ignorant of the broader conspiracy at the time of the agreement and that the plea deal was intended to be fully dispositive of all such Title 18 charges, similar to the ruling in United States v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. The court therefore concluded that the prosecution of Count I violated the agreement and ordered its dismissal, while leaving Title 26 tax counts intact.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatoryelections

The case involves a plaintiff's flood insurance claim initially filed in Oklahoma state court, which the defendants sought to remove to federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 4053, asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. The reasoning is that the statute provides for federal jurisdiction but does not make it exclusive, as confirmed by the legislative history which explicitly allows state court remedies, and the regulation attempting to limit jurisdiction to federal courts only exceeds the statutory authority.

federal powerprocedure

This case concerns plaintiffs who sued in Oklahoma state court for flood-related property damages under a federal flood insurance program, after which certain defendants removed the action to federal court citing 42 U.S.C. § 4053. The plaintiffs moved to remand, one non-removing defendant did not object, and another noted lack of timely notice. The court reviewed the statute's text, which provides for federal district court jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy, alongside its legislative history expressly preserving state court remedies, and found that a related federal regulation adding the word "only" exceeded the statute's scope by purporting to create exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court therefore sustained the motion and remanded the case to the District Court of Tulsa County.

procedurefederal power

This case involved consolidated challenges by the Oklahoma State Banking Board and others against two national banks' use of off-premises customer-bank communication terminals (CBCTs, such as ATMs) in retail locations, alleging they functioned as unauthorized branch banks under state law. After evidentiary hearings, site visits, and a trial on the merits, the court determined that the CBCTs did not constitute branch banks. The core reasoning rested on the State Bank Commissioner's testimony that a terminal accessible to customers of all banks would not be considered a branch of any single bank, along with the distinction that such devices merely facilitate electronic fund transfers without establishing a place of business for one institution. The court also noted observations on competitive equality with other financial institutions but found the non-branch determination dispositive of the claims.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Squaw Transit Company, a motor common carrier, sought to eliminate gateways in its irregular route operating authorities by filing an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission under 49 CFR 1065, but the filing was incomplete and late in providing supporting evidence. The ICC dismissed the application for failure to adduce required evidence and later denied Squaw's petition for reconsideration. Squaw challenged these actions in federal district court, which reviewed the record including mitigating circumstances such as the ICC's initial acceptance of the incomplete filing and subsequent communications suggesting processing. The court determined that the ICC abused its discretion by denying rehearing, as there was no injury to the agency but significant harm to Squaw, and remanded the matter for the ICC to reconsider the petition. A concurring opinion emphasized that the ICC's acceptance of the application followed by dismissal without notice violated minimal due process requirements.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved American Oil Company suing the United States to recover damages after the IRS seized and padlocked a service station it owned and leased to taxpayer James D. Aman to collect Aman's unpaid federal taxes of $1,850.02. The plaintiff alleged inverse condemnation under the Fifth Amendment, breach of an agreement to return the property upon payment, loss of use, reputational harm, and related costs, while the government contested jurisdiction and denied any unlawful action. The court determined it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 and IRC § 7426, found the seizure effected a temporary taking, and awarded the plaintiff $425.76 in rental value for a 24-day period plus $204 in lost tire-sale profits based on the government's occupation of the premises. The reasoning relied on precedents holding that the United States is liable for the rental value of occupied property even without intent to pay rent, extending compensation beyond the exact days of physical seizure to cover the full deprivation period.

taxespropertyfederal power

This case involved a federal lawsuit by a news agency and its manager seeking injunctions, return of seized materials, and damages after police seized large quantities of books, magazines, newspapers, and films from a warehouse under an Oklahoma obscenity statute, 21 O.S.A. § 1040.51, which prohibits trafficking in depictions of sexual intercourse or unnatural copulation. The plaintiffs challenged the seizures and threatened criminal prosecutions on grounds including bad faith enforcement, facial unconstitutionality of the statutes for vagueness and overbreadth, lack of a prior adversary hearing before seizure, and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A three-judge district court denied injunctive relief against present or future prosecutions, held that the statutes were not clearly invalid on their face, and ruled that seized materials should be returned to the plaintiffs except for copies retained as evidence, provided a prompt post-seizure hearing is held if requested. The court remanded the damages claims for separate proceedings before a single judge and denied all other relief.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

This case concerns a challenge by competing motor carriers to an Interstate Commerce Commission order granting Chandler Trailer Convoy, Inc. expanded authority for secondary movements of mobile homes across the continental United States. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the certificate, claiming the Commission erred by denying petitions to reopen the proceeding, that the findings lacked adequate record support, and that Chandler was unfit to receive the authority. The court denied relief, concluding that the Commission's order was supported by the record as a whole, that no procedural errors occurred in denying reconsideration, and that no showing of unfitness barred the grant of the certificate.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a challenge by intervenors, including psychologists, psychiatrists, and a minister, to the constitutionality of Oklahoma statutes criminalizing abortion procurement and related activities. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the court declared 21 O.S. §§ 861 and 862 unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, granting declaratory relief but denying an injunction. It abstained from deciding the validity of § 714 to permit state court interpretation consistent with federal precedent and found no justiciable controversy regarding other professional conduct regulations.

abortioncriminal law

The case involved a challenge by plaintiff Chatman, on behalf of himself and others, to provisions of the Oklahoma Social Security Act and related welfare regulations. The suit contested the confidentiality of welfare records, the ban on charging fees for representing welfare applicants, and the denial of Aid to the Disabled benefits to adults disabled since childhood when their parents could provide support, while granting benefits to those disabled after majority regardless of parental support. The court determined that Chatman could not assert claims regarding the record confidentiality and fee prohibition statutes, as he lacked standing to do so, and no class action was proper on those issues due to lack of numerosity and adequate representation. However, the court allowed the equal protection claim to proceed as a class action, finding common questions of law, typicality, and adequate representation for individuals similarly situated based on the stipulated facts showing differential treatment by the defendants.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a challenge by existing motor carriers to an Interstate Commerce Commission order granting a common carrier certificate to Martin Trailer Toters, Inc., to transport mobile homes, including certain additional services like tire inflation and winching. The plaintiffs argued that the Commission violated procedural due process by denying an oral hearing and cross-examination on disputed facts, failed to apply the distinct statutory standards separating common carriers from contract carriers when evaluating the extra services, and issued an order unsupported by substantial evidence or clear reasoning, particularly regarding the inclusion or exclusion of certain states like Florida, Texas, and Alabama. The court found no due process violation because no material facts were genuinely disputed, but held that the Commission's reliance on prior precedent was misplaced given the differing statutory tests for common carriers under 49 U.S.C. § 307(a), which require findings of fitness, ability, and public convenience and necessity without the individualized need language applicable to contract carriers. The court set aside the order and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify the rationale behind the additional services and territorial grants.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a plaintiff seeking damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries sustained in a car collision with a government employee acting within the scope of employment. Before suing the government, the plaintiff had settled with the employee in state court through a covenant not to execute and dismissed the claims against him. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the settlement released the United States as well. Under the FTCA, state law controls both the creation and release of liability, and Oklahoma law provides that a release of an agent in a respondeat superior situation releases the principal even if the instrument attempts to reserve rights against the employer.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure