In this case, Phillips Petroleum Company built a pipeline across the owner's rural property without permission, mistakenly believing it had acquired a blanket easement or other rights through prior transfers and record checks, resulting in a trespass about three feet outside its known 35-foot easement. The owner sued for actual and exemplary damages plus a mandatory injunction to remove the pipeline. The trial court awarded $5,260 in actual damages and $60,000 in exemplary damages but denied the injunction. On appeal, the court affirmed the actual damages and denial of the injunction, finding the trespass unintentional, the owner's use not substantially affected, and removal would cause undue hardship, but reversed the exemplary damages award because the evidence showed Phillips acted in good faith without malice, fraud, or gross negligence.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved whether General Motors Corporation's interest in an assembly plant financed through a public trust (Oklahoma Industries Authority) was subject to ad valorem taxation, despite an alleged agreement for tax abatement in exchange for building the plant in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court's summary judgment against GMC, holding that the plant is taxable because it is held under an executory contract of purchase. The court reasoned that Article 10, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits contracting away the state's power of taxation, making any such abatement agreement void, and relied on its prior decision in State ex rel. Cartwright v. Dunbar that similar public trust leaseholds are taxable.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This case was a tort action brought by a student and his parents against a school superintendent for allegedly spanking the child with excessive force while intoxicated, after the child was involved in minor scuffling at school. The plaintiffs did not provide the notice required by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the case on that basis. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act's protections for political subdivision employees do not apply to allegations of willful and wanton conduct that falls outside the scope of employment. The court reasoned that the petition's claims of unnecessary force, intoxication, and threats placed the superintendent's actions beyond the immunity provided by the Act, which covers only torts committed within the scope of employment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved property owners petitioning the Town of Talihina to detach certain land from its corporate limits, which the town denied, leading to a district court order for detachment that the town appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that 11 O.S.1981, § 21-107 is unconstitutional because it improperly assigns to the judiciary the legislative task of deciding whether annexation or detachment requests should be granted without injustice to interested parties. The court reasoned that while judges may review municipal actions for compliance with authority and reasonableness, determining the merits of boundary changes is a purely legislative function that cannot be delegated to courts. It reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings on whether the town's denial was within its legislative authority and reasonable.

property

The case involved a plaintiff allegedly injured in a car accident after losing control on a patch of loose rock and oil left on a state highway by Department of Transportation employees. The trial court sustained the state's demurrer to the petition on grounds of sovereign immunity, as highway maintenance was deemed a governmental function, and the plaintiff elected to stand on the petition leading to judgment for the state. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, distinguishing a prior case involving voluntary county maintenance of a city street and holding that state highway construction and upkeep is a mandatory governmental function under the state constitution and statutes, with sovereign immunity applying unless the legislature chooses to abrogate it.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether Initiative Petition No. 317, proposing to redraw Oklahoma's congressional districts after the 1980 census, was numerically and legally sufficient to appear on the ballot as State Question No. 556. Protestants raised challenges including improper circulation of the petition while ballot-title proceedings were pending, defective statutory form, constitutional vagueness, retroactive impact on ongoing election processes, and conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's provisions on congressional redistricting and the timing of federal elections. The court analyzed the interaction between state initiative statutes and federal election laws, referred the numerical-signature issue to a referee, and examined each legal objection under Oklahoma and federal constitutional standards.

electionsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved an employee of a nursing center who was injured during the course of her employment and sought benefits under her husband's group health insurance policy issued by the appellee. The policy excluded coverage for charges related to injuries arising out of or in the course of employment for wage or profit. The trial court sustained a demurrer and denied recovery based on this exclusion, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the exclusionary clause plainly applied to the appellant's work-related injury, agreeing with the analysis in a prior Court of Appeals decision on an identical provision.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned whether the Oklahoma Legislature could require the University of Oklahoma's Board of Regents to grant faculty members a six percent salary increase via Senate Joint Resolution No. 9. The Board argued this interfered with its constitutional authority to govern the university, while the faculty sought to enforce the increase through mandamus. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the district court's decision granting the writ, holding that Article XIII, § 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests exclusive authority in the Board to determine faculty salaries. The core reasoning was that elevating the Board's status to a constitutional entity limited legislative control, and the salary mandate substantially interfered with the Board's governance powers, as implied limitations on legislative authority arise from such delegations.

labor & employment

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Beverly and Tom Masquat against doctors Philip Maguire and Thomas Points, alleging an unauthorized tubal ligation performed during a Caesarean section without proper consent. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, sustaining a demurrer for Dr. Points and a jury verdict for Dr. Maguire, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that testimony from a hospital administrator nun was not privileged as it was in her administrative capacity, and the informed consent doctrine did not apply to require disclosure of alternative sterilization methods since the patient had consented to the procedure and no causal link to injury was shown from the unrevealed risks. The appeal regarding Dr. Points was rejected based on the affirmance for the primary doctor.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Nesbitt, the case concerned whether an earlier order forfeiting a criminal defendant's appearance bond, which was later set aside by the court, qualified as a 'previous forfeiture' under 59 O.S.Supp.1980, § 1332(3), thereby barring relief from a subsequent forfeiture order. The trial court had sustained the State's demurrer to the evidence based on the prior order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the term 'previous forfeiture' refers only to final orders or judgments and does not include those that have been set aside, as such orders are annulled and treated as void. The court reasoned that forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed and that the legislature did not intend to bar relief in cases where the initial forfeiture was vacated for good cause or because it was void or voidable. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners suing the City of Oklahoma City for damages from a fire that destroyed their home, claiming the city negligently failed to maintain an operational fire hydrant, which delayed firefighting efforts. The trial court dismissed the action, finding it barred by the Oklahoma Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, specifically section 155(6). On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute exempts municipalities from liability for losses resulting from the failure to provide or the method of providing fire protection, and that maintenance of fire hydrants is incidental to that governmental function. The court reasoned that even if the issue involved water service, it was part of the overall fire protection operation, thus covered by the immunity provision.

torts & liability

The case concerned a challenge to the appointment of W. Keith Rapp as district judge for Office No. 5 in Oklahoma's Fourteenth Judicial District (Tulsa and Pawnee Counties), which a statute designated for nomination from and residency in Pawnee County. Petitioner, the District Attorney, brought a quo warranto action alleging the appointment was invalid because Rapp was a resident of Tulsa County, though he was a qualified elector of the overall district. The court assumed original jurisdiction as the matter was of public concern and examined Article 7, § 8(g) of the Oklahoma Constitution along with statutes 20 O.S. §§ 92.15 and 92i. It held that the constitution requires only district-wide elector status for appointment, the statutes impose durational registration requirements primarily on election candidates with explicit exemptions for appointees, and no residency mandate applied to the appointee in this vacancy-filling process. The court therefore denied the petition to oust Rapp from office.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a 1977 Corporation Commission pooling order that designated Global Gas as operator of a drilling unit and required it to pay non-participating mineral owners $25 per acre in lieu of participation, with Global Gas required to begin drilling within 90 days. Buttram Energies, a mineral owner that received the order but made no election, later sought a new pooling order to participate in the producing well after Global Gas tendered the in-lieu payment 24 days late. The Commission dismissed the application, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the late payment did not render the original order ineffective as to Buttram's interest, that the payment obligation created a fixed debtor-creditor relationship regardless of whether the well was drilled, and that Buttram had not shown the substantial change in conditions needed to modify or supplement the 1977 order under 52 O.S. § 112.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a supplier's lawsuit to recover payment on an open account for goods provided to the defendant, who denied any amount was due. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that ruling while reversing the attorney fee award. The court reasoned that the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was waived because it was not specifically pleaded in the answer and was never formally added by amendment, so it could not be considered based solely on statements in interrogatory responses; summary judgment was proper on the undisputed facts in the presented record. The attorney fee was reversed due to a lack of evidence regarding the value of services rendered.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff seriously injured in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by negligent tire and tube installation at a service station, leading him to sue multiple parties including Conoco on theories of products liability, warranty, negligence, and apparent authority. Conoco moved for summary judgment, supported by stipulated facts showing it had no ownership, control, or distribution role over the independent station or the tires. The district court granted the motion, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Conoco's signs and general advertisements alone did not create apparent authority because they did not reasonably lead a third party to believe the station employees were its agents, citing Coe v. Esau and related cases on the requirements of principal conduct, reliance, and reasonableness.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a claim by the estate of Bobby Wayne Martin for accidental death benefits under a group insurance policy issued by Oklahoma Farmers Union after Martin died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The trial court determined the death was accidental and granted summary judgment to the estate. The key dispute was whether the master policy's exclusion for 'suicide or any self-inflicted injury while sane or insane' or the individual certificate's narrower exclusion for 'suicide or any attempt thereat' controlled the outcome. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the individual certificate's terms prevail over conflicting provisions in the master policy, based on a state statute requiring insurers to provide certificates summarizing coverage to employees and on precedents emphasizing that the certificate is the document the insured actually receives. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the estate.

business & regulatory

This case arose from Chandler's sale of land to Forsberg under a contract that included a vendor's lien, followed by the School District's condemnation action against part of the property and its later settlement to acquire a substitute tract directly from Forsberg. Chandler sued to enjoin the School District's use of the land and sought damages, claiming a de facto taking that impaired his lien under the Oklahoma Constitution, along with related claims in companion cases. The district court sustained a demurrer and granted summary judgments dismissing the actions. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that Chandler was not entitled to compensation because his property was not taken and his proprietary rights were undisturbed, any consequential damages claim was premature, and the procedural rulings were supported by prior judgments in the litigation.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a quiet title action over land along the North Fork of the Red River in Beckham County, Oklahoma, where the river's medial line had shifted northward since the 1874 survey, adding substantial acreage. Plaintiff Euen Ellis and related parties claimed the added land through accretion to their riparian lots on the south bank and sought to quiet title against northern property owners. The trial court found accretion had occurred and ruled for Ellis, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed. It held that the United States was an indispensable party because it owned severed mineral interests in Lots 1-3 that could be affected by the accretion ruling, yet could not be joined in state court under federal law. Without the U.S. as a party, the court lacked authority to adjudicate the claims.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Dolese Bros. Co., a rock mining and sales company that began using its own fleet of trucks in 1972 to deliver crushed aggregate to customers with a separate transportation charge. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission determined that Dolese qualified as a common carrier under the state Motor Carrier Act because it held itself out to the public for compensated intrastate transportation and derived significant revenue from hauling, ordering it to cease such operations without regulatory authority. Dolese appealed, contending it was a private carrier since the trucking was incidental to its primary crushed rock business and involved its own goods. The court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that the separate charges and public delivery satisfied the statutory definition of a common carrier regardless of ownership of the transported property.

business & regulatory

The case involved the City of Norman suing Sherwood Forest Corporation on a subdivision improvement bond posted in 1971 as security for installing sidewalks, which were never built, seeking recovery of installation costs. The primary issues were the applicable statute of limitations and when the city's cause of action accrued. The court held that the general five-year limitations period for written contracts applied and began running on the bond's expiration date of April 5, 1973, making the suit filed exactly five years later timely. It reasoned that two-year limitation provisions in the city's ordinance and the bond were void under the state constitution and statutes, and that the cause of action accrued at bond expiration because the developer had the full term to complete the sidewalks and the city could not successfully sue earlier.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure