Slip opinions decided 2024 — Oklahoma Public Domain Citations

¶ 0 Medical providers sued a former employee for breach of an employment agreement. Employee filed counterclaims alleging he was owed unpaid wages and bonuses. Providers filed an answer to the counterclaims, raising "failure to state a claim" as the sole affirmative defense. After nearly four-years of litigation, providers attempted to raise, for the first time, that the contract was illegal and therefore void as a matter of law. The lower court issued an order finding providers had waived the affirmative defense, thus precluding its use as shield from liability. Following a trial on the merits, the trial judge determined providers had breached the employment agreement and issued a money judgment of $387,618.36 in favor of employee. Providers appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that refusal to consider providers' claim of illegality was an abuse of discretion. We granted certiorari and now hold the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in striking the Plaintiffs/Appellants' last-minute effort to raise a new affirmative defense.

¶1 Rule 5 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings of the State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters, Okla. Stat. tit. 20, ch. 20, app. 2, is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." The remainder of Rule 5 is unaffected by the Amendment. The Amended Rule will be effective immediately upon the date of issuance of the Order.

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), in compliance with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), has forwarded to this Court certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, Plea of Guilty, and Judgment and Sentence from the following matter in Cleveland County, Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma v. Andrea Beth Bennett , case no. CF-2022-0040. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Respondent pled guilty to the charge of felony Child Endangerment by Driving Under the Influence, the charge of misdemeanor Driving a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol, the charge of misdemeanor Transporting Open Container of Alcoholic Beverage, and the charge of misdemeanor Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage. The court sentenced Fryar to a four-year suspended sentence on the felony conviction, a one-year suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a six-month suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of transporting open container of alcoholic beverage, and a one-year suspended sentence on the misdemeanor conviction of leaving the scene of an accident involving damage, with all terms of imprisonment to run concurrent with each other.

¶0 Respondent pled guilty to the felony crime of Eluding Police Officers in Indian Country in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1152, and 21 O.S. § 540 (A) and (B). The Court issued an order of interim suspension in a professional disciplinary action filed under Rule 7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1A. The Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) for a hearing. This matter is before us for final discipline. The PRT and Bar Association recommend a suspension for time equal to Respondent's criminal one-year probation term. We hold the record supports a finding that the appropriate discipline is a one-year suspension with credit for time served under the interim suspension.

¶0 The Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the Respondent, David Earl Johnson, with seven counts of professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing and recommended the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of the Respondent's conduct warrants a suspension of his law license for a period of two years and one day. The Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and one day year from the date of this opinion and ordered to pay costs as provided herein.

¶0 Complainant, State of Oklahoma ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, David Leo Smith, with one count of professional misconduct. The Trial Panel recommended Respondent be publicly censured for his violations, or in the alternative if the Court deems a term of suspension is appropriate, that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law not to exceed ninety (90) days. We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of Respondent's conduct warrants a suspension from the practice of law for thirty (30) days. Complainant's application to assess costs is denied.

¶ 0 Melissa Evans was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident with a car being driven by Darrell D. Blaylock. Both Evans and a passenger in Blaylock's automobile, George D. Blaylock, were killed in the crash. Evan's son, Joshua Evans, initiated a probate proceeding and was named personal representative of his mother's estate. Later, Joshua Evans filed a motion seeking a court order declaring that Melissa Evan's house qualified for the homestead exemption. The probate court denied this request and Joshua Evans commenced an interlocutory appeal. We retained the case and now hold that the subject real property does not qualify for either a constitutional or probate homestead exemption.

¶ 0 Respondent/Appellant, Brandi McCubbin (hereinafter "Adoptive Mother"), appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights for failure to protect V.J.R., also known as F.V.M. (hereinafter "Child"), from shocking and heinous abuse pursuant to 10A O.S.2021, § 1-4-904(B)(9). This Court retained the appeals in this case and a companion case--i.e., Victoria Rodriguez v. State of Oklahoma ( In re M.R. ), No. 120,910 (Okla. filed Dec. 7, 2022)--to address an issue of first impression concerning whether the trial court should have applied ICWA's heightened burden of proof in a case that does not involve a Native American child or family. In Rodriguez v. State ( In re M.R. ), 2024 OK 28 , ¶ 0, 16--23, 548 P.3d 120 , 123, 128--31, we held that, in such a case, the parent lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of ICWA and that, even if we were to presume standing existed, the equal protection claim must fail because ICWA's heightened burden is based on a preference that is political (i.e., tribal membership) rather than racial. Thus, all that remains in this appeal is to dispose of Adoptive Mother's remaining arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence against her and the admission of a DVD recording of Child's forensic interview into evidence. Upon review of those issues, we find that the trial court's order terminating parental rights should be affirmed.

¶ 1 Respondent, who has pending disciplinary proceedings, has submitted an affidavit pursuant to Rule 8, Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedure (RGDP), 5 O.S. ch. 1 app. 1-A, seeking to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish her right to practice law. Complainant OBA has filed an application for an order approving resignation pending disciplinary proceedings.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association commenced disciplinary proceedings against Respondent pursuant to Rules 6 and 8 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, for committing professional misconduct in other jurisdictions, failing to report to the Oklahoma Bar Association the disciplinary actions in other jurisdictions, failing to cooperate in the Oklahoma Bar Association's investigation into an admonishment filed against Respondent in another court, and failing to participate in these disciplinary proceedings. The Trial Panel recommended that this Court disbar Respondent from the practice of law. We hold that Respondent's conduct warrants disbarment. We further order Respondent to pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings.

¶0 A non-party appeals adverse discovery orders stemming from the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum . The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of an appealable order. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that the discovery orders relating to the subpoena duces tecum are appealable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the non-party to produce the documents responsive to the subpoena.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 The Respondent, after a guilty plea, was convicted of violating 18 U.S. C. § 371 (conspiracy). The charge involved conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud related to his misuse of insider information of his client Continental Resources, Inc. He is currently serving a 60-month sentence. The Complainant filed the required Notice of Criminal Conviction with this Court and we ordered the interim suspension of the Respondent's license to practice law. The Respondent, although notified of these disciplinary proceedings, has not requested a hearing or otherwise responded to these proceedings. The Complainant requested the Respondent be disbarred. We hold the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 This is a wrongful death and personal injury action arising from the fatal collision between a pickup truck driven by Paul Watson and a train owned and operated by BNSF Railway Company. A jury found BNSF was not liable for the collision and the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, found prejudicial error in the instructions given to the jury and remanded the case for a new trial. This Court previously granted certiorari. We find the error, if any, in the instructions was not so prejudicial as to mislead the jury to reach a result it otherwise would not have.

¶0 Corporation Commission issued an order preventing certain utilities from billing customers for certain municipal franchise fees and municipal gross receipts taxes by application of the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. The City of Oklahoma City appealed. The appeal was retained sua sponte by the Court for appellate review. The Corporation Commission filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was previously denied by the Court. We hold: The Oklahoma Municipal League possesses standing in the controversy; and the Commission's determination that the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act changed, amended, or altered a utility's legal obligations concerning municipal franchise fees and gross receipts taxes is a determination not sustained by law and must be reversed.

¶1 The Court hereby amends Rule 15, Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S., ch. 2, app., as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B.

¶1 The State moved to terminate Father's (Parker) parental rights to Child, a member of the Choctaw Nation. After a jury trial, held in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, the jury terminated Parker's rights. Parker was present for a portion of the trial. In this appeal we do not decide the merits of that termination decision. We are concerned only with whether Parker's procedural due process rights were violated, and whether the trial court was required to comply with the provisions of ICWA found in Title 25, Section 1912 (d) and (f) of the United States Code. We answer both questions in the affirmative and remand the case for a new trial.