Frank Howell Seay

This case involves third-party claims for negligence, contribution, and indemnification against Banyan Air Service, Inc., arising from the 2007 crash of a Cessna aircraft in the Bahamas due to an alleged engine fuel pump failure. The claims were brought by Covington Aircraft Engines, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation after the plane's owner, Agape Flights, Inc., sued them over the loss of the aircraft. Banyan, a Florida-based fixed-base operator that had serviced the engine while it was rented to another customer, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that Banyan's limited contacts with Oklahoma (Covington's home state) were too attenuated and not purposefully directed at the forum to support either general or specific personal jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiff Jonathon Alexander, a father whose parental rights were terminated by the Choctaw Nation's Court of Indian Appeals after guardians petitioned to adopt his two children while he was incarcerated. Alexander sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in federal district court to halt the adoptions and restore his rights, arguing issues with the transition from CFR courts to the Choctaw Tribal Court and lack of due process. The court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed no basis for federal court intervention in the tribal court proceedings.

family lawcivil rightsfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Jimmy D. Eakle sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) he signed as part of selling his security systems company, ACS, to defendant Grinnell Corporation for $650,000. The NCA restricted Eakle from competing in Arkansas and Oklahoma for five years and included a Delaware choice-of-law clause. The court granted summary judgment to Grinnell, holding the NCA valid and enforceable. It reasoned that Delaware law governed the agreement and did not violate Oklahoma public policy, as the restrictions were reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and business activities covered. The court rejected Eakle's arguments regarding alleged promises of continued employment or equitable grounds for invalidation.

business & regulatory

The case involved former KBR employees Jessie Pierce and Cecil Elizondo suing the company for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, with Elizondo also claiming national origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, based on their May 2002 terminations. KBR moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings under its Dispute Resolution Program (DRP), which mandates binding arbitration for employment disputes including those involving age and national origin discrimination. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims fell within the DRP's scope, the agreement was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act's policy favoring arbitration, the DRP was not illusory because amendments required at least 10 days' notice to employees, and evidence showed the plaintiffs had received notice of the DRP terms through company mailings.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a challenge by labor unions to Oklahoma's right-to-work law, enacted via voter-approved constitutional amendment in 2001, which prohibits requiring union membership, dues, or related payments as a condition of employment and bars certain union practices like exclusive hiring halls without consent. Plaintiffs argued that key provisions were preempted by federal statutes including the NLRA, LMRA, RLA, CSRA, and PRA under the Supremacy Clause, and also violated the Oklahoma Constitution. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the federal preemption claims lacked merit because the NLRA and related laws explicitly permit states to ban union-security agreements, and Supreme Court precedent such as Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co. confirms states' authority to prohibit both compulsory union membership and non-membership discrimination. The court further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case is a medical negligence action in which plaintiff John Alton Woodruff alleges that substandard care at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility and the Oklahoma City Indian Clinic (OCIC) led to the surgical removal of his bladder, and he seeks $15 million in damages. Defendant Dr. C. Thomas Covington moved to dismiss, claiming FTCA immunity as an OCIC employee or, alternatively, lack of diversity jurisdiction. The court held that OCIC, established as a temporary demonstration project under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and excluded from the Indian Self-Determination Act, is not a federal agency whose employees qualify for FTCA coverage, so Covington is not entitled to immunity. However, because the court has original FTCA jurisdiction over the Carl Albert claims and the allegations against Covington arise from the same course of treatment, supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) applies to the state-law claim against him. Covington’s motion to dismiss was therefore denied.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiff Heavener prevailed at trial on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Meyers, along with related state-law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. As the prevailing party, plaintiff applied for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, seeking approximately $78,000 based on over 555 hours of work by two attorneys and support staff at specified hourly rates. The court granted the fee request but substantially reduced the amount, applying the lodestar method of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate and finding the requested hours excessive due to billing padding, duplication, and counsel's inexperience in civil rights matters, while also determining that the proposed rates exceeded customary local market rates for attorneys of similar experience.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved the Cherokee Nation and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes suing the United States over unpaid contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act for operating federal health programs in 1996 and 1997. The tribes sought summary judgment claiming the government breached its contracts by not paying full costs despite insufficient appropriations. The court denied the tribes' motions and granted the government's cross-motion, reasoning that the contracts and statute conditioned payment on available appropriations, so the government was not liable for shortfalls when Congress provided inadequate funding.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence following convictions for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, possessing chemicals and methamphetamine with intent to distribute, using a firearm during a drug offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. After an initial denial and a remand for appointment of counsel at an evidentiary hearing, the court addressed claims that the jury instruction on firearm use was erroneous under Bailey v. United States and that the government failed to prove the type of methamphetamine or apply the proper listed-chemical guideline at sentencing. The court found that the government met its burden to establish D-methamphetamine for sentencing on the drug counts based on undisputed expert testimony about the seized substance and reasonable inferences from the manufacturing evidence, but it granted resentencing on one count due to an unraised listed-chemical guideline issue that amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. All other claims, including the Bailey instructional error, were denied on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, railroad employee Jose Graves sued his employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a rail car while releasing a hand brake. The defendant raised defenses of preemption, estoppel, collateral estoppel, and res judicata based on a prior disciplinary hearing and Public Law Board decision under the Railway Labor Act and collective bargaining agreement, which had found Graves guilty of filing a false injury report and upheld his termination. The court granted Graves' motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting those defenses and allowing the FELA claim to proceed. The reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that FELA provides an independent statutory remedy for negligence that is not barred or preempted by RLA arbitration procedures, though the plaintiff cannot relitigate wrongful discharge claims or recover damages tied directly to the termination itself; he may, however, present evidence of future lost earning capacity due to the injury.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by Zurich Reinsurance against Westville Riding Club and James Curtis Remaley to determine coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy for injuries Remaley sustained while participating in a rodeo event called 'Money the Hard Way.' The policy contained an exclusion for bodily injury to any person participating in sports or athletic contests sponsored by the insured. The court granted summary judgment to Zurich, ruling that the exclusion was unambiguous and applied to Remaley's participation, so Zurich had no duty to defend Westville or pay any resulting judgment. The core reasoning was that Remaley had left spectator status to directly compete in the event for a prize, making him an athletic participant under the policy language, unlike officials or ancillary figures in cited cases.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The Cherokee Nation sued NationsBank in federal court to contest garnishment proceedings initiated by former employees in state and tribal courts to collect on judgments, seeking damages, a stay on fund releases, and return of funds from suspense accounts. The court had jurisdiction under federal question and other statutes to assess whether tribal courts exceeded their authority. It dismissed the claim regarding the lone state court garnishment (Walker) with prejudice, finding no violation of tribal sovereignty, and dismissed the claims involving tribal court garnishments without prejudice. The core reasoning was that federal courts must abstain under the tribal exhaustion rule until tribal remedies are fully pursued, as established in National Farmers Union, while the state garnishment did not implicate the same concerns.

federal powerprocedure

This case involves a Title VII sexual harassment claim brought by Jessalyne Dedner against her employer, the State of Oklahoma, along with a pendent state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dedner alleged that her supervisor at the Department of Corrections engaged in quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, including conditioning days off on sexual favors and various unwanted advances from November 1996 to January 1997. The court granted the State's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, finding no tangible employment action occurred and that the State established its affirmative defense under the Ellerth/Faragher standards because Dedner unreasonably delayed reporting the harassment despite available policies. The court dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after resolving the federal claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Ray L. Ingram, a former employee of Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., who alleged that the company violated Title VII and the ADEA by discriminating against him on the basis of sex and age in failing to promote him and in terminating his employment, and by retaliating against him for opposing discriminatory practices; he also asserted related state-law claims for invasion of privacy and violation of Oklahoma public policy. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all federal claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. It reasoned that Ingram had not exhausted administrative remedies for certain promotion and retaliation allegations, as shown by the limited scope of his EEOC charge and intake questionnaire; that he failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on discriminatory or retaliatory motive, including because his termination followed his surreptitious recording of conversations with company officials; and that any disparate-impact or other theories were either unpled or unsupported by the record.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Cline v. Fort Howard Corp., plaintiff Pamela McCoy Cline sued her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her vision impairment and sex after she was transferred from the rewinder department back to the folder department because she refused to operate a lift truck. The court granted summary judgment to Fort Howard, finding no genuine issues of material fact on either claim. Cline was not disabled under the ADA because her nearsightedness, corrected by glasses, did not substantially limit any major life activity, and her inability to perform one specific task did not qualify. The court also found no evidence of sex discrimination in the transfer or related actions, noting Cline had abandoned any harassment claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a products liability action in which the plaintiff, as personal representative of Jack Wayne Woulfe’s estate, sued Eli Lilly & Co. alleging that inadequate warnings on the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to Woulfe’s suicide. The plaintiff claimed the U.S. package insert was deficient compared to the German insert because it omitted language about the lack of sedative effect, the need for close observation until the antidepressant effect began, and the possible need for an additional sedative. The court granted summary judgment to Lilly on the failure-to-warn claim. It reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate causation because the prescribing physician already knew of Woulfe’s severe depression and suicidal risk, so any additional warnings would not have changed the physician’s actions or the outcome.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves the United States government's motion to recuse the presiding district judge in a criminal prosecution against the Chief of the Choctaw Nation for charges of sexual abuse of tribal employees. The court denied the motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a), finding it both untimely and without substantive merit. The government alleged bias based on the judge's out-of-court comments regarding the timing and potential political appearance of the indictment, as well as certain evidentiary rulings adverse to the prosecution. The court reasoned that these comments reflected concern over procedural fairness and grand jury integrity rather than personal prejudice, and that adverse rulings alone do not establish bias warranting recusal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two consolidated criminal prosecutions in federal court for aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 1152/1153, where jurisdiction turned on whether the offenses occurred in "Indian country," specifically a "dependent Indian community" under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(b). The alleged crimes took place in houses located in the Rocky Mountain area of Adair County, Oklahoma, on former Indian allotments now owned by a state agency providing housing to Cherokee members. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the Rocky Mountain area lacked the characteristics of a community, was not predominantly Indian, and did not exhibit the requisite federal supervision or dependency to qualify as a dependent Indian community. As a result, the locations were not Indian country, federal jurisdiction was absent, and the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted, dismissing both cases.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved defendant Hollis Earl Roberts, Chief of the Choctaw Nation, who faced an eight-count federal indictment for abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual abuse, and sexual abuse allegedly committed at the Choctaw Nation tribal complex in Durant, Oklahoma. Roberts moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the offenses did not occur in Indian Country. The court denied the motion, holding that the tribal complex property qualified as Indian Country. The court reasoned that title to the property had been conveyed to the United States in trust for the Choctaw Nation in 1976, with BIA approval, and had been treated as trust land by the tribe, the BIA, and the state since that time, satisfying the statutory definition regardless of minor procedural issues in the acquisition.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Ronnie Williamson, who was convicted in 1988 of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma state court for the 1982 killing of Debbie Carter. After exhausting state appeals and post-conviction proceedings, Williamson challenged his conviction and sentence on multiple constitutional grounds, including Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations related to evidence handling, jailhouse informant testimony, and sentencing procedures. The federal district court granted the writ, vacating the death sentence. The core reasoning centered on flaws in the sentencing phase, particularly the improper reliance on unadjudicated prior acts as an aggravating factor without adequate evidentiary standards or jury instructions, as well as other trial irregularities such as potential Brady violations and competency issues.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights