Slip opinions decided 2025 — Oklahoma Public Domain Citations

¶0 A minor child's mother appealed the district court's decision that denied the mother's motion to terminate a guardianship order of the minor child. This Court retained the appeal. We affirm the district court's decision. The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the best interest of the child outweighed the substantial completion of the mother's guardianship requirements to terminate the guardianship and regain custody of the minor child.

¶ 0 The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified a question of state law to the Court pursuant to the revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2011 §§ 1601-1611.

¶0 Petitioner, Christopher Charles Jolley (Jolley), seeks extraordinary relief from this Court to vacate Judge Laura McClain's order quashing a subpoena duces tecum. Jolley sent the subpoena to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation's (ODOT) expert property appraiser in an attempt to discover how much income the appraiser has received as an expert witness in past. We assumed original jurisdiction, Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4, and now hold that issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is not among the methods prescribed by the Oklahoma Discovery Code by which an expert witness's financial information may be discovered.

¶0 Years after his divorce was final, a firefighter retired and elected to participate in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Plan B program. The firefighter's former spouse sought to enforce the parties' divorce decree, requiring the firefighter to pay her a portion of his Plan B benefits. The district court ruled in favor of the former spouse and ordered the firefighter to pay his former spouse a portion of the funds in the Plan B account. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. This Court granted certiorari. We hold that when a vested firefighter selects the Plan B option post-divorce and the divorce decree does not specify the allocation of these funds, the Plan B account is divisible marital property to the extent that any funds in the account are attributable to the marital years. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

¶ 0 The trial court approved an adoption without consent based on mother's failure to comply with an order for child support. A division of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that determination, finding federal stimulus monies retained by father should not have been considered when evaluating mother's compliance or non-compliance with the child support order. We granted certiorari and now conclude the trial court's refusal to consider economic stimulus payments, which were received by Father and credited by him to Mother's child support debt, was an abuse of discretion. Additionally, we find the evidence did not support a finding mother had willfully failed, refused, or neglected to pay child support in substantial compliance with a court order for twelve consecutive months out of the fourteen preceding the filing of the adoption petition.

¶0 When Plaintiff/Appellee Kelly Patrick Donaldson was convicted of second degree rape and became subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) in 2005, SORA did not prohibit sex offenders from residing near parks. The Oklahoma Legislature subsequently amended 57 O.S., § 590 to prohibit sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a city park. Defendant/Appellant City of El Reno appeals from the trial court's entry of a declaratory judgment that applying the current residency restrictions in 57 O.S.Supp.2019, § 590 (A) to Donaldson violates the ex post facto clause of the federal and state constitutions and that the version of SORA in effect on the date of his conviction applies. We hold that the residency restrictions do not amount to punishment; therefore, applying the current residency restrictions to Donaldson does not violate the ex post facto clause.

¶0 This appeal originates from a private guardianship over two Indian children. After years of guardianship proceedings, the Cherokee Nation requested a transfer to tribal court pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the State of Oklahoma and the Cherokee Nation Regarding Jurisdiction over Indian Children within the Nation's Reservation. The district court granted the motion to transfer. Guardians appealed and we granted the Cherokee Nation's motion to retain. AFFIRMED.

¶ 0 This matter concerns the review of a certified interlocutory order denying the Defendant/Petitioner's, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC), motion to dismiss. The underlying cause of action concerns allegations of employment discrimination made by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Claudia C. Conner, against the OESC. The motion to dismiss was based upon Conner's alleged failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The trial court denied the motion because it found there existed material conflicts between the GTCA and the anti-discrimination statutes. We hold there are no material or irreconcilable conflicts between the two acts pertaining to the dispositive issue concerning the notice provisions. We remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶0 Insured brought an action against the Insurer alleging the Insurer's denial of its claim for damages from a fire loss was in bad faith. Both parties sought summary relief. The Honorable Leah Edwards, District Judge of Garvin County, on a motion to reconsider the denial of Insurer's motion for summary judgment, granted Insurer's motion finding that Insurer made a timely, legally effective offer to renew the insurance policy, and was not required to send its offer directly to the first named insured pursuant to the insurance contract and Oklahoma law, and the insured failed to accept Insurer's offer to renew, and no insurance contract existed at the time of the fire loss. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We hold that the trial court erred in (1) finding that Insurer was not required to send its renewal offer directly to the first Named Insured; and (2) in failing to decide issues properly raised by Insured. We further hold that the terms of the insurance contract and 36 O.S. § 3639 (E) required Insurer to provide written notice of a renewal offer with premium increase directly to the first Named Insured; where such notice is not mailed or delivered in accordance with the contract and Section 3639 (E), "the premium, deductible, limits and coverage in effect prior to the changes will remain in effect" as outlined in the policy. 1 COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER REVERSED; MATTER REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 0 In the spring of 2018, People's Electric Cooperative, Inc., (People's) and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) submitted competing bids to provide retail electric service to the Tall Oak Woodford Cryo Plant (Tall Oak or Plant) in Coal County, Oklahoma. The Plant is located in the certified territory of People's, which has exclusive rights to provide electricity to customers in the area pursuant to the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E's successful proposal relied on the Large Load exception to RESCTA, which permits a supplier "extending its service" into another supplier's certified territory for qualifying large-load customers. To provide service to the Plant, OG&E did not extend its own retail distribution lines, but tapped into third-party transmission facilities. Upon People's application, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission enjoined OG&E from serving the Plant, finding that OG&E was not "extending its service" in a manner authorized by RESCTA. We retained OG&E's appeal. We hold that Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires a limited review of the Commission's order, and we affirm the Commission's determination that a retail electric supplier may not use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory under the Large Load exception of RESCTA. AFFIRMED

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant, filed a complaint against Isaac Seth Brantley Shields, Respondent, alleging two counts of misconduct based on Respondent observing jury deliberations. Upon de novo review, we find Respondent violated title 21, section 588 of the Oklahoma Statutes and committed (1) a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's trustworthiness, (2) conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation, (3) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and (4) actions contrary to prescribed standards of conduct for a lawyer which brought discredit upon the legal profession.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 1 On February 10, 2020, the petitioner, Shannon Otteson Lucero, elected to change her status with the Oklahoma Bar Association from Active Member to Retired Member. 1 On August 2, 2024, Lucero petitioned this Court for reinstatement, seeking to return as an Active Member of the OBA.

¶0 Mother's parental rights were terminated after a nonjury trial at which she failed to appear. Mother appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed. We granted certiorari, vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and remand to the trial court.

¶0 Appellant's driver's license revocation was sustained by the district court after he agreed to a breath test, which was later deemed invalid. Couch appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division III, affirmed the district court's decision. We granted certiorari to resolve a division among the Court of Civil Appeals Divisions III and IV regarding the statutory meaning of the "other competent evidence" issue.

No Description Available, please check the website.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 Appellant appeals from a post-judgment order of the district court denying attorney's fees. Appellant sought attorney's fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute after a jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant for less than its offer of judgment to Appellees. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding Appellant's offer of judgment was invalid because it was not apportioned between Appellees. This Court granted certiorari to decide an issue of first impression. COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

¶0 Pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, the Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association transmitted documentation to this Court detailing the Respondent's, Mosemarie Dora Boyd, 2023 suspension of six months from the practice of law in Arkansas. After review of the record, we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the Arkansas ruling. We hold, Mosemarie Dora Boyd committed certain acts of professional misconduct related to a guardianship action she filed in Arkansas. These acts also violate certain rules of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2021, Ch.1, App. 3-A. We suspend her license to practice law for six months commencing on September 27, 2024. No costs have been assessed.

No Description Available, please check the website.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶0 Taxpayer, a limited partnership and the owner of a parcel of real property with apartment buildings, appeals the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review determining that a transfer of partnership interests was legally the same as title to the property being transferred, changed or conveyed to another person and thereby lifting the five percent (5%) limitation on increasing the fair cash value of the property for ad valorem taxation pursuant to Okla. Const. art. 10, §8B.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 0 Appellant sued the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for alleged violations of the Open Records Act. The district court granted DOC's motion to dismiss. Appellant appealed, and this Court ordered that it proceed as an accelerated appeal from a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.36, Rules of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. We affirm the district court's decision.

¶1 Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent, James Albert Conrady, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA, requests an emergency interim suspension and related relief to prohibit Respondent from withdrawing funds from his IOLTA account until a complete audit may be performed, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶1 The Council on Judicial Complaints ("the Council") initiated this case by delivering a report to the Chief Justice concerning the Council's investigation of Special Judge Emily Mueller. The report contained Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommendation ("the Report") that the Supreme Court impose a private reprimand and mandatory judicial education.

¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Jessica Lyn Brown, OBA No. 33725, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent requests that she be allowed to relinquish her license to practice law and to resign her bar membership pending disciplinary proceedings, as detailed in her affidavit prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. As provided in Rule 8.2, RGDP, the Court "may enter an order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings" upon the filing of Respondent's affidavit in this Court.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 0 State Representative Andy Fugate filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order requesting the district court bar enforcement of Governor Kevin Stitt's Executive Order requiring full-time state agency employees to return to in-office work and find the Order to be null and void for violating the separation of powers doctrine. The district court dismissed the case finding Representative Fugate lacked standing. Representative Fugate appealed and we retained the matter. We affirm the district court's dismissal.

¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee's claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69 (A)(4)(b) after Employee did not receive or seek medical benefits for a period of nine months. Administrative Law Judge denied Employer's motion to dismiss, and the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed. We retained the matter for disposition and reverse the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

¶ 0 This is an original proceeding to determine the legal sufficiency of Initiative Petition No. 448, State Question No. 836 (hereinafter "IP 448"). IP 448 seeks to repeal Article III, Section 3 of the Oklahoma Constitution that currently governs Oklahoma's primary elections and to create a new primary system in its place under the proposed constitutional amendment that creates Article III-A in the Oklahoma Constitution. According to the Proponents/Respondents' gist, IP 448 "would establish an 'open primary' system" in which "all candidates for a covered office would appear on the same primary ballot without regard to party affiliation, and any qualified voter could vote for any candidate without regard to party affiliation. A voter in the open primary could vote for only one candidate per covered office. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the open primary would advance to the general election, without regard to party affiliation and without regard to whether the candidates have been nominated or endorsed by any political party." Pet'rs' App. at p.A5, Gist. The gist goes on to provide that "[i]n all elections for covered offices, . . . candidates' political party registration or independent status as of the date of candidate filing would appear on the ballot next to their names[,] and the ballot would state that a candidate's indicated party registration does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the political party." Id. The Protestants/Petitioners filed this protest pursuant to 34 O.S.2024, § 8 (B) challenging the facial constitutionality of IP 448 as violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right of association and challenging both the gist and ballot title as misleading. Upon our review, we hold IP 448 is legally sufficient. It survives Petitioners/Protestants' facial constitutional challenge in light of applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Its gist is not misleading, and the challenge to its ballot title is premature.

¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Respondent Wesley Blake Hulse filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow him to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) the OBA's Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶0 Cassity B. Gies entered a nolo contendere plea to one felony count of child endangerment and one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence. The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. No interim suspension was imposed, and the matter proceeded to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. While the case was pending, Gies was also charged in municipal court with public intoxication. Following a hearing, the PRT recommended a public reprimand. We disagree and conclude the record supports suspending Gies for a period of six (6) months and assessing costs of this proceeding.

¶0 Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC) appealed an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission denying OEC's application for injunctive relief against Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E). OEC sought to enjoin OG&E from providing retail electric service to a customer located in OEC's certified territory pursuant to the Large Load exception to the Retail Energy Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), 17 O.S. 2011, § 158.25 , et seq . The Commission denied OEC's application, but did so based only upon OG&E's affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver, and laches. We retained OEC's appeal. We hold that RESCTA's Large Load exception does not permit OG&E to connect with third-party transmission lines in order to extend its service into OEC's certified territory, in accord with this Court's recent decision in Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n , 2025 OK 15 , 565 P.3d 418 [ People's ]. The Commission erred to the extent its analysis fails to reach this conclusion. Because People's has prospective-only application, however, the practical result is that OG&E will not be enjoined from serving the customer in the present case. We therefore affirm the Commission's order insofar as it permits OG&E to continue providing retail electric service to the customer in OEC's certified territory.

¶0 The Petitioner filed suit alleging certain healthcare providers acted negligently in providing medical care to her. The district court granted a motion to dismiss for two of the providers finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Petitioner appealed and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We previously granted certiorari. We vacate the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, reverse the Judgment of the district court, and remand for further proceedings.

¶0 Appellant appeals from a post-judgment order of the district court denying his motion to vacate. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, unavoidable casualty or misfortune prevented Appellant from defending the action against him, justifying the vacation of the judgment.

¶0 Petitioner brought this action seeking a writ of prohibition against Respondent's order directing Petitioner to represent an indigent defendant in his request for resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors' Act. Original jurisdiction is assumed, and we grant the extraordinary and declaratory relief sought by Petitioner.

¶ 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.

¶0 Legal representative of nursing home resident brought medical negligence action against nursing home arising from resident's care. District Court granted nursing home's motion to compel arbitration and legal representative appealed. We retained the matter and now affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED.

¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Tracy Smith Zahl ("Respondent") filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow her to resign her membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish her right to practice law, and (2) Oklahoma Bar Association's ("Complainant") Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶1 Before this Court is (1) the affidavit of Brian Noel Lovell ("Respondent") filed pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, requesting that this Court allow him to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish his right to practice law, and (2) Oklahoma Bar Association's ("Complainant") Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings.

¶ 0 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Senate Bill 632, an act relating to business courts. On July 15, 2025, the Court assumed original jurisdiction to issue a stay of the effectiveness of the Act pending further order of this Court. We deny the Governor's Motion to Dismiss. We find that Petitioners possess standing. We hold S.B. 632 is an unconstitutional violation of Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Because we conclude the unconstitutional provisions of the Act are not severable, the Act is void in its entirety, and we need not adjudicate Petitioners' additional claims challenging the Act.

¶ 0 The State Board of Examiners of Certified Courtroom Interpreters (Board) brought a formal complaint against Respondent, a Registered Courtroom Interpreter, alleging grounds for professional discipline. Following a disciplinary hearing, the Board found a sufficient basis for discipline and ultimately recommended that Respondent's enrollment as a Registered Courtroom Interpreter be revoked.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 0 Traci Cain Carey (Applicant) stopped paying bar dues to effectively resign from bar membership. As a result, Carey was suspended in June 2011 and stricken from the roll of attorneys in June 2012. Carey petitioned for reinstatement in November 2024. Following its hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal Trial Panel (Trial Panel) recommended we deny reinstatement. Upon de novo review, we agree.

¶0 Contesting a probate proceeding denying admission of an alleged 2019 Will, Moore and Oklahoma City Community Foundation, Inc. ("OCCF") (collectively "Appellants") appeal the district court's ruling: (1) determining venue was proper in Johnston County; (2) determining that Cheryl Moore ("Moore") had renounced her right to an appointment as personal representative under the 2018 Will; and (3) admitting the 2018 Will to probate instead of the later alleged 2019 Will. On the Court's motion, this matter was retained for disposition in the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

¶ 0 The real parties in interest, the Naquins, sued Petitioner, America's Car Mart, Inc. (ACM), concerning enforcement of a vehicle service warranty contract. Petitioner moved for partial summary judgment. Both parties agreed that, if constitutional, Title 15, Section 141.24(B) of the Service Warranty Act would govern the dispute. Respondent, Judge Cantrell, ruled that the statute constituted an unconstitutional special law and denied Petitioner's motion. We disagree with that ruling and issue a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondent from enforcing it.

¶ 0 In an attorney-discipline proceeding initiated under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Respondent was charged with five counts of professional misconduct. The charges contain multiple allegations that Respondent neglected his clients and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed professional misconduct and failed to cooperate in responding to the grievances. The PRT recommended, by unanimous vote, that Respondent be disbarred. During the pendency of this Rule 6 proceeding, Complainant initiated a summary reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against Respondent under RGDP Rule 7.7. Upon de novo review, we order Respondent's disbarment pursuant to both RGDP Rules 6 and 7.

¶0 Respondent was an attorney licensed to practice law as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA). The OBA initiated a Rule 6 proceeding and alleged respondent's professional misconduct. Respondent is currently prohibited from practicing law by an emergency interim order of suspension ( 2024 OK 24 ), and an order of suspension for his failure to comply with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education rules ( 2025 OK 39 ), and an order striking his name from the Roll of Attorneys due to his failure to pay dues ( 2025 OK 40 ). The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended respondent be disbarred. Respondent filed a resignation from the Bar Association and later filed a notice withdrawing his resignation. The OBA objected to the resignation and also filed a motion to strike respondent's response brief. The OBA initiated a Rule 7, RGDP, summary disciplinary proceeding based upon respondent's judgment and sentence and nolo contendere plea to violating 21 O.S. §136. The Rule 7 proceeding, S.C.B.D. No. 7922, is consolidated into the Rule 6 proceeding, S.C.B.D. No. 7528. We hold: (1) Respondent's resignation does not comply with the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and is not approved. (2) Respondent's pending motions are denied. (3) Complainant's motion to strike respondent's answer brief is denied. (4) Respondent violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct as well as provisions of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. (5) The proper professional discipline is to disbar respondent effective the date of his previous interim suspension. (6) Costs of the disciplinary proceeding are imposed on respondent. (7) The Disciplinary Rule 7 proceeding does not result in additional discipline because respondent is disbarred in the Rule 6 proceeding. Costs are assessed against respondent. APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT'S RESIGNATION PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS DENIED; RESPONDENT DISBARRED; RESPONDENT'S NAME REMAINS, AND SHALL BE, STRICKEN FROM ROLL OF ATTORNEYS; AND RESPONDENT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS

¶ 1 This is an appeal of a Final Order by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission sitting en banc issued August 18, 2020. Applicant/Appellant Lake Region Electric Cooperative (hereinafter "Lake Region") sought an order enjoining Respondent/Appellee Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (hereinafter "OG&E") from serving electric-consuming facilities owned by Intervenors/Appellees Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC. The basis for Lake Region's requested injunction was its allegation that OG&E's servicing of electricity at those facilities violated the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA), 17 O.S.2011, §§ 158.21 --158.32. The Corporation Commission seemingly agreed that OG&E had violated section 158.25(E) of RESCTA insofar as OG&E did not simply "extend[] its service" using its own retail distribution system as permitted under the One-Megawatt/Large-Load Exception, but rather used third party transmission lines to reach the facilities in Lake Region's territory. See ROA at pp. 684--85, Doc. 98: Final Order 6--7, Aug. 18, 2020. We qualify that characterization as "seemingly agreed" because the Corporation Commission "recognized the similar issues raised in both this Cause and Cause No. PUD 201800075"--which was the matter on appeal in OG&E v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n ( CKenergy I ), 2023 OK 33 , 535 P.3d 1218 , overruled prospectively by OG&E v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n ( People's ), 2025 OK 15 , ¶ 64, 565 P.3d 418 , 435--and because the Corporation Commission ultimately concluded in Cause No. PUD 201800075 that OG&E had violated section 158.25(E) of RESCTA. Id. at p.685, Final Order 7. Nevertheless, the Corporation Commission found that the case "involve[d] equitable defenses not addressed in Cause No. PUD 201800075, and should be determined based upon [its] individual facts and circumstances." Id. In reaching those equitable issues, the Corporation Commission found that "laches is applicable as Lake Region neglected to seek a remedy in a timely fashion"; that "Lake Region's claim is barred by waiver"; and that "Lake Region is now estopped to claim it has exclusive rights to this service." Id. at pp. 687--88, Final Order 9--10. Thus, the Corporation Commission held that Lake Region's application for injunctive relief should be denied in light of the equitable defenses affirmatively pled and proved by OG&E. Id. at p.688, Final Order 10.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶ 1 Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme court Rules provides that "[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling decision." Okla. S.Ct. Rule 1.201.

¶ 0 The district court dismissed Brightwater's ancillary petition and did not grant leave to amend it. Brightwater filed an amended ancillary petition, which was treated as a motion to reconsider and denied; the petition was dismissed with prejudice. The Court of Civil Appeals, Div. IV, reversed. We reverse the COCA opinion and affirm the district court.

¶0 The Oklahoma County District Court held that agency heads may not concurrently serve as Cabinet Secretaries under Oklahoma's prohibition against holding dual office. We hold that 74 O.S § 10.3 expressly provides that agency heads may serve as Cabinet Secretaries.

¶1 The Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association has proposed amendments to Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court on Licensed Legal Internship, as well as an amendment to Regulation 7 of the Regulations of the Oklahoma Bar Association Legal Internship Committee. 1

¶ 0 Following a split decision in the Court of Civil Appeals, Defendants sought certiorari review regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the scope of the U.S. Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation (PREP) Act's targeted liability protections. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d. We granted certiorari to determine whether the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to PREP Act immunity.

¶ 0 Plaintiff/Appellant Larry Austbo, surviving spouse of Marilyn Darlene Austbo, (Plaintiff) commenced an appeal in this case after the district court granted summary judgment in Defendants/Appellees Greenbriar Nursing Home Number Two, Inc., H. Thomas Snyder, and Tom Snyder, M.D.'s (Defendants) favor. Because this case turns on the interpretation and application of the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparation (PREP) Act, as well as our state's COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Limited Liability (COVID-19) Act, for which there is no binding precedent or prior ruling, we retained the appeal.

¶0 This appeal concerns the Oklahoma Open Records Act and the public's access to metadata.

¶ 0 The trial court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, concluding that a jail trust formed pursuant to 60 O.S.2022, § 176 et seq . and 19 O.S.2022, §§ 904.2 -- 904.10 for the purpose of operating a county detention center qualified as a "law enforcement agency" under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, 51 O.S.2022, § 24A.3 (5). As such, the jail was not forced to provide certain records. 51 O.S.2022, § 24A.8 . On appeal, we reverse finding the statutory definition of "law enforcement agency" is unambiguous and that the jail trust does not meet the plain terms of the definition.

¶ 1 On February 14, 2014, the petitioner, Brandy Kearney Chambers, elected to resign her membership with the Oklahoma Bar Association. Since resigning with the OBA, Chambers has continued to practice law in the State of Texas (Texas Bar License No. 24041169). On May 29, 2025, Chambers petitioned this Court for reinstatement.

¶0 Melissa Evans died in a car accident on September 3, 2020, leaving a will that named her former spouse as the primary beneficiary and her descendants as contingent beneficiaries. Her son, Joshua Evans, initiated probate proceedings and, on November 17, 2020, obtained an order which admitted the will to probate, appointed Joshua as personal representative, and identified the heirs, devisees, and legatees. Joshua was later removed, and James Greer was appointed as successor personal representative. On January 5, 2024, Greer moved to vacate that portion of the 2020 order identifying heirs and beneficiaries. The motion alleged Joshua neglected to serve two individuals entitled to notice, including the decedent's former stepdaughter. The trial court granted the motion on March 25, 2024. Two months later the trial judge entered a new order modifying the list of heirs and beneficiaries, specifically finding Decedent's former stepdaughter was a beneficiary under the will. Joshua filed the present appeal on June 11, 2024, challenging both the court's authority to vacate the 2020 order and its subsequent determination of heir and beneficiary status. We retained the appeal but now dismiss it, concluding that Joshua's challenge to the vacatur order is untimely and that the interlocutory order identifying heirs, devisees, and legatees is not appealable.

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), Complainant, has filed an application to approve the resignation of Kelsey Alison Baldwin (OBA No. 34500), Respondent, from its membership, as well as a copy of Respondent's affidavit tendered to the Professional Responsibility Commission pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, wherein she expresses her wish to resign and to relinquish her right to practice law pending investigations into alleged misconduct.

¶0 Petitioners filed an application for the Court to assume original jurisdiction and a petition for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. Petitioners challenged the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. The Court assumed original jurisdiction pursuant to a previous order that stayed enforcement of the 2025 Standards. The Court holds: (1) Original jurisdiction assumed due to the nature of the controversy; (2) Declaratory relief is granted because the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies were created using a procedure that violated 25 O.S.2021, §311 (A)(9) of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act; (3) The 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies shall not be enforced; (4) The 2019 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies remain in effect as Academic Standards until the Oklahoma State Board of Education properly adopts new academic standards for social studies with subsequent legislative review; (5) The previous order of the Court granting a temporary stay until further order of the Court is dissolved, and the requested petition for a writ of mandamus is withheld; and (6) The Clerk of this Court shall substitute in the style herein "Lindel Fields, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction" for "Ryan Walters, in his official capacity as State Superintendent of Public Instruction," as well as "Brian Bobek" and "John Nofire," in their "official capacity as members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education" in place of "Zachary Archer" and "Sarah Lepak" in their "official capacity as members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; DECLARATORY RELIEF GRANTED; STAY DISSOLVED; WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHHELD WITHOUT PREJUDICE

No Description Available, please check the website.

No Description Available, please check the website.

¶1 On November 14, 2025, the OBA filed its verified complaint and application for emergency interim suspension against Respondent David Phillip Spielman, pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.2A, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension and related relief to preserve and recover funds, pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Charles Brady Morris, OBA No. 16019, from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent requests that he be allowed to relinquish his license to practice law and to resign his bar membership pending disciplinary proceedings, as detailed in his affidavit prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. As provided in Rule 8.2, RGDP, the Court "may enter an order approving the resignation pending disciplinary proceedings" upon the filing of Respondent's affidavit in this Court.