Marian P. Opala

This case involves post-appeal proceedings in a child welfare matter where a mother challenged trial court orders following an earlier appellate decision affirming aspects of a 2008 permanency plan for her adopted child, who had been placed in DHS custody and foster care due to the mother's health decline. The mother argued that the trial judge ignored the prior mandate by maintaining the child's placement with the foster parent, limiting her to supervised visitation, shifting the permanency plan to long-term out-of-home care, and violating her due process rights. The court rejected all claims, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the mandate, did not abuse discretion in the placement and visitation orders, and did not violate due process. Core reasoning rested on evidence from psychologists and counselors showing the child's ongoing distress and risk of serious psychological harm from reunification efforts or changes in placement, consistent with statutory standards allowing restrictions to protect the child.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against Jeffrey Allen Martin for failing to supervise a nonlawyer employee who provided legal services, including filing documents in federal court, resulting in violations of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. After a de novo review of the stipulated facts and record, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found sufficient evidence of misconduct, including improper delegation and aiding unauthorized practice of law. The court rejected the trial panel's recommendation of a six-month suspension and instead imposed a public reprimand, reasoning that it aligned with the stipulated agreement, mitigating factors such as the respondent's lack of prior discipline and cooperation, and sanctions in comparable cases.

procedure

The case involved Oklahoma's Attorney General suing Native Wholesale Supply, a corporation chartered by the Sac and Fox Tribe, for allegedly violating the Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act by selling Seneca brand cigarettes in the state without complying with escrow payment and certification requirements for non-participating tobacco manufacturers. The trial court found personal jurisdiction based on minimum contacts but dismissed the case, holding that the Indian Commerce Clause barred enforcement against the tribally chartered entity. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant and reversed on subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that federal law does not preempt the state's authority to enforce its nondiscriminatory regulatory statute against off-reservation commercial activities. The core reasoning was that the company's sales into Oklahoma created sufficient contacts for jurisdiction and that tribes and their members engaging in off-reservation business remain subject to generally applicable state laws absent express federal preemption.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned the length of a driver's license revocation imposed by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety on Jordan Jobe following his third alcohol-related driving offense within five years. Jobe argued for a one-year revocation period because his first revocation occurred more than five years before the third arrest based on the date his license was seized and notice served, while DPS maintained it was a three-year period since the prior revocation's effective date fell within five years. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that under the relevant statute a revocation commences when the actual revocation period begins rather than upon initial seizure or notice, and therefore the three-year revocation applied to Jobe's third offense.

criminal law

In this case, consumers filed a putative class action against several fuel retailers alleging breach of contract, warranties, and violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act for selling gasoline containing ethanol without disclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of a cognizable claim and that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, finding jurisdiction in district court and a disclosure duty under 52 O.S. § 391. On interlocutory review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over these private-rights claims, as the Commission’s authority is limited to public rights and it cannot award damages, but that the cited statute created no duty to disclose fuel additives.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by the mother of a twelve-year-old girl against Oklahoma City under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, alleging that a police officer used excessive force during an arrest at a middle school, resulting in the girl's broken wrist and injured elbow while breaking up a fight. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, finding it immune from liability under one of the GTCA's statutory exemptions. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper because the evidentiary materials presented genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officer's use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and whether the City's claimed exemptions from liability applied. The court emphasized that summary process cannot resolve disputed factual inferences and remanded the case for further proceedings, while noting that the City could raise additional defenses on remand.

torts & liabilityprocedure