Rudolph Hargrave

This case concerns the constitutionality of 85 O.S. § 48(A), a workers' compensation statute that generally allows claims to be filed within two years of injury but requires filing within six months if employment has terminated. The Oklahoma Supreme Court followed its prior ruling in Poneg Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Jackie Wilkinson, which held that the distinction between continued and terminated employees creates an unconstitutional special law under Art. 5, § 46 because it favors one group without a reasonable connection to curtailing retaliatory or stale claims. The Court of Civil Appeals had deemed the provision constitutional, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and sustained the Workers' Compensation Court's order finding the statute unconstitutional.

labor & employment

This case concerned disputes over Oklahoma Corporation Commission pooling orders for oil and gas interests in a 640-acre unit in Dewey County. In 1985, the Commission had force-pooled upper formations (Unit 1) and designated an operator for an initial well. Harding & Shelton later sought to pool deeper unpooled formations (Unit 2) and to amend the 1985 order to clarify that non-participation in deeper wells would affect interests in Unit 1, designate itself as operator of subsequent wells, and allocate costs via COPAS. The Commission granted these amendments, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that it was supported by substantial evidence, did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the original order, and properly allowed orderly development while protecting correlative rights of interest owners.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the estate of a truck driver killed in a multi-vehicle accident while working, after which the employer's workers' compensation insurer paid death benefits to the family pursuant to an Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court order. The employer and insurer sought to intervene in the family's pending wrongful death lawsuit against the third-party truck owners and drivers to recover the benefits paid, relying on subrogation rights under 85 O.S. § 44(d). The trial court dismissed the intervention petition on summary judgment, a ruling affirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court held that § 44(d) grants an independent cause of action only to the employer, not the insurer, and that the employer here had paid no benefits itself, so neither party had standing to intervene or recover. The statute's plain language was deemed unambiguous and controlling, with no rights extended to the insurer for death benefits.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Jackie Wilkinson against her former employer, Ponca Iron & Metal, for cumulative trauma injuries to her hands and arm from keyboard and filing duties; she was awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical care after her December 2005 termination. The employer raised a statute-of-limitations defense under the 2005 amendment to 85 O.S. § 43(A), which required post-termination injury claims to be filed within six months. The Workers' Compensation Court rejected the defense, finding the provision unconstitutional, and this was affirmed on appeal. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the six-month limit created an arbitrary classification between terminated and continuing employees that bore no reasonable relationship to preventing retaliatory or stale claims, violating the prohibition on special laws in Oklahoma Constitution Article 5, Section 46; it vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and sustained the award.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association by Charla Reiter Montgomery, who had been removed from the rolls in 1996 for nonpayment of dues and failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, exercising de novo review, examined whether Montgomery possessed good moral character, had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and maintained the necessary competency and learning in the law. The court found that testimony established her moral character, her contract negotiation work in Texas was not considered the practice of law as it was overseen by attorneys and business-oriented, and she had completed recent CLE courses. Accordingly, the court granted reinstatement upon payment of costs and outstanding dues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the State of Oklahoma seeking to terminate the parental rights of James and Lisa Sparks to their children N.W.S. and J.L.S. after the children were adjudicated deprived in 2006 based on allegations including an unsanitary home, inappropriate sexual activity and physical discipline by the father, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and risk of harm. The parents stipulated to the allegations and received an individualized service plan but, following a 2008 bench trial, the trial court terminated their rights on grounds that they failed to correct the conditions leading to the adjudication, the children had spent 15 of the prior 22 months in foster care, and termination served the children's best interests. The parents appealed after their motion for new trial was denied; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated that decision and affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court reasoned that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents had not remedied the issues, citing ongoing instability in housing and employment, the father's mental health commitments and erratic behavior when drinking, and the children's special needs stemming from the original home environment.

family law

The case involved a claim by Salazar Roofing & Construction against the City of Oklahoma City for property damage to its truck caused by a negligent city employee operating a dump truck. The city admitted negligence and that Salazar had complied with the Governmental Tort Claims Act notice requirements but contended it was exempt from full liability under provisions barring claims based on subrogation, indemnification, or workers' compensation, and that it owed only the insurance deductible due to Salazar's private insurance coverage. The trial court awarded Salazar full damages, ruling the claim was a direct first-party action rather than subrogation and that the cited exemptions did not apply. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutes did not bar recovery because the suit was brought by Salazar in its own name as the real party in interest with no secondary liability or subrogation involved.

torts & liability

The case was a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged its former General Counsel, Walter D. Murdock, with violating Rule 1.3 RGDP after he entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor Outraging Public Decency following a sexual battery charge that did not involve any client or client funds. The Trial Panel found the rule violation but recommended only a private reprimand, citing mitigating factors including Murdock's remorse, cooperation, completion of probation and community service, lack of prior discipline, and character evidence from multiple witnesses. The Bar sought a public reprimand instead, and the court undertook de novo review of the full record to assess whether clear and convincing evidence supported the misconduct allegations and to determine the proper sanction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a taxpayer and frequent court litigant challenging portions of Oklahoma statutes (28 O.S. Supp.2008 §§ 152(D)-(F) and 152.1(B)) that directed parts of civil filing fees to non-judicial programs, including adoption registries, the Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Account, and the Attorney General's Victim Services Unit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and declared those provisions unconstitutional under the state constitution's open access to the courts clause. The court reasoned that litigants cannot be required to pay fees supporting programs unrelated to court services or maintenance, as this effectively burdens access to justice. It declined to reach the petitioner's due process arguments.

procedurecivil rights

In Rowe v. Rowe, a divorced couple with one minor child had a shared parenting plan that was later modified through proceedings in which a guardian ad litem was appointed under 43 O.S. § 107.3 to investigate and advocate for the child's best interests. The trial court awarded sole custody to the mother after the parties stipulated to ending joint custody, despite the guardian's recommendation for sole custody with the father; neither parent appealed. The guardian filed a petition in error seeking review, but the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari on that question of first impression. The court held that a guardian ad litem appointed in a private divorce custody case serves as an arm of the court to assist in the best-interests determination and has no independent standing to appeal a custody order when the parents themselves do not appeal.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Martha Elaine Hirst's petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after she voluntarily resigned in 2000 while practicing law in New York. Hirst had maintained good moral character, kept current with continuing legal education requirements in multiple jurisdictions, and had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Oklahoma. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found she met the criteria by clear and convincing evidence, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, exercising de novo review, agreed that she satisfied Rule 11.5 requirements for moral character, lack of unauthorized practice, and legal competency. The court granted reinstatement upon payment of costs. The decision rested on Hirst's evidence of ongoing professional qualifications and compliance with bar rules since her resignation.

procedure

The case involved a home buyer who sued his real estate agent and the agent's company under Oklahoma's Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act after discovering major structural and foundation defects in the purchased property. The sellers had provided a disclosure statement indicating no known defects, and the agent received a six-month-old engineer's report stating the home was in relatively good structural condition with no structural requirements, orally informing the buyer it was 'clean' without providing a copy until after closing. The buyer argued the agent failed to disclose known defects, but after a bench trial the trial court granted the agent's motion to dismiss, finding no evidence the agent had actual knowledge of defects triggering further duties under the Act. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the report did not identify any 'defects' as defined by the statute and that the agent had complied with disclosure obligations by relaying the report's clean assessment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari but ultimately affirmed the judgment, vacating the intermediate court's opinion.

propertyprocedure

The case involved cross-claims by Dunlap Medical, Inc., an Oklahoma distributor, against Smith & Nephew, Inc., the manufacturer of a recalled medical device, arising from a products liability suit filed by a surgeon. Dunlap Medical's corporate charter had been suspended from 2001 to 2008 for nonpayment of franchise taxes, and the trial court dismissed the cross-claims (except for indemnification) on the ground that they accrued during the suspension period. The court interpreted 68 O.S. § 1212(C) to bar a suspended corporation from pursuing affirmative claims that arose while its privileges were forfeited, even after reinstatement, because the statute's penalties are strictly construed and reinstatement does not relate back to restore the right to sue on such claims. The opinion reviewed the statutory language, legislative intent, and prior precedents distinguishing the right to defend from the right to assert new causes of action.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

In Speight v. Presley, plaintiffs sued the Oklahoma County Court Clerk and the Board of County Commissioners under the Governmental Tort Claims Act for negligent maintenance of court records that allegedly caused a duplicate traffic citation to be entered into the system, resulting in an erroneous bench warrant and the plaintiff's arrest and detention. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a court clerk performing ministerial duties as an arm of the court is engaged in judicial or quasi-judicial functions exempt from liability under the GTCA, and that the Board has no agency or respondeat superior relationship with the clerk for such duties, as established in North Side State Bank v. Board of County Commissioners.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a lawsuit by Richard Barnett against oil operators Darryl Simmons and Paul Franks d/b/a Rock Oil for alleged underpayment of royalties and breach of fiduciary duty on the Osborn lease, including claims of improper oil movement and limited production. During discovery, Rock Oil sought inspection of Barnett's computer hard drive to verify evidence such as production records, affidavits, and communications with agencies like the Oklahoma Corporation Commission; a motion to compel was granted after negotiations, but Barnett later dismissed the action and his hard drive showed deleted or inaccessible files. The trial court denied sanctions, holding that defendants failed to prove willfulness by a computer novice. The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the standard for imposing discovery sanctions under 12 O.S. § 3237 for failure to obey orders regarding electronic information, including whether willfulness must be shown.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Mary Redd against employer ArvinMeritor for cumulative trauma injuries to her elbows, arms, wrists, thumb, and later her shoulders, with the last exposure in 2002 and an initial claim filed in 2008. The trial court and three-judge panel awarded compensation for the shoulder injuries and rejected the employer's statute of limitations defense, finding that authorized medical treatment had tolled the limitations period. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sustained the award, holding that the employer's stipulation in 2004 authorizing an independent medical examiner to perform a complete examination and treatment, including physical therapy later recommended for the shoulders in 2006, constituted authorized treatment that tolled the two-year period under 85 O.S. § 43(A). The Court applied the any-competent-evidence standard and determined that the amended claim filed in October 2006 was timely.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a same-sex couple who married in Canada in 2002 and later sought dissolution of that marriage in an Oklahoma trial court. The trial court initially granted a default dissolution decree but, after learning of the same-sex nature of the marriage, vacated the decree on its own motion and dismissed the petition. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court properly vacated the decree due to irregularity in obtaining it, as the parties and counsel failed to disclose the same-sex nature of the marriage or relevant legal authority, but erred in dismissing the petition without providing the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by due process when property interests are at stake. The matter was remanded for a hearing after proper notice to the parties and the Attorney General.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is an attorney disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged Gary Don Hammond with violating rules on client trust accounts and professional conduct after he wrote checks totaling $8,778.94 from the firm's trust account for personal purposes, including drug purchases during a period of addiction. Hammond, a bar member since 1990 with no prior discipline, admitted the misconduct, cooperated with the investigation, replaced the funds (which his partner had discovered), completed rehabilitation, and dissolved the partnership. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4(c), 1.15(a), and 8.4 and recommended a two-year suspension with credit for one year, but the court conducted a de novo review and concluded that the conduct amounted to commingling and unauthorized use of funds rather than intentional misappropriation causing client harm. The court imposed a six-month suspension and costs of $858.57, applying a continuum of discipline based on the degree of harm and culpability while considering mitigating circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Gene Stipe, a long-serving Oklahoma legislator, forfeited post-1981 retirement benefits from the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System after pleading guilty to federal crimes of conspiracy to violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, conspiracy to obstruct an FEC investigation, and perjury. OPERS determined that the convictions violated Stipe's oath of office under 51 O.S. § 24.1 and denied benefits, but the district court reversed, ruling that the offenses were unrelated to his state service and did not violate the oath, and that OPERS had inconsistently applied the statute in a prior case. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed the agency order de novo on the legal question of whether the crimes violated the oath of office, with review limited to the administrative record.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case concerned whether Equity Insurance Company provided proper notice to cancel Cleo Smith's automobile liability insurance policy for nonpayment of an installment premium. The trial court granted summary judgment to Equity, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the anticipatory cancellation notice sent with the billing statement was ineffective. The court reasoned that under the policy terms, which require at least ten days' notice for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium, such notice cannot be given before the premium is actually due and unpaid, as the notice must be clear and unequivocal following the triggering event.

business & regulatory