558 P.3d
Volume 558 — Pacific Reporter, Third Series
22 opinions
- 558 P.3d 19IN RE: STATE QUESTION NO. 832 INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 446 (2024)
¶1 Proponents of State Question 832, Initiative Petition 446 have circulated their petition and collected signatures to place State Question 832 on the ballot. The state question would amend the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act to increase the state minimum wage, beginning in 2025 with $9.00 per hour and increasing $1.50 every year until the minimum wage was $15.00 in 2029. Thereafter, the minimum wage would increase based upon the increase in cost of living, if any, as measured by the U.S. Department of Labor. Proponents timely filed their pamphlets with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on July 15, 2024. See 34 O.S.2021 § 3 .
- 558 P.3d 197State of Washington v. Simone Renee Nelson (2024)
- 558 P.3d 227The People of the State of Colorado v. Pete Paul Martinez (2024)
- 558 P.3d 234The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner: v. Francine Erica Segura. Respondent: (2024)
- 558 P.3d 254Hess v. Hess (2024)
- 558 P.3d 290In re Gamble (2024)
- 558 P.3d 478Steven Beard, V. The Everett Clinic Pllc (2024)
- 558 P.3d 529Judith K. Merrill, In Her Individual Capacity and as Trustee of the Judith K. Merrill Revocable Trust Dated November 13, 2020; and the Judith K. Merrill Revocable Trust Dated November 13, 2020 v. Casey Ryan Ruppert and Janae Elizabeth Ruppert (2024)
- 558 P.3d 562Rafter J Ranch Homeowner's Association, a Wyoming Nonprofit Corporation v. Stage Stop, Inc., a Wyoming Profit Corporation (2024)
- 558 P.3d 576Wade Boyd Bloedow v. Nicole Maes-Bloedow (2024)
- 558 P.3d 621State v. Sidor (2024)
- 558 P.3d 705Terteling v. Terteling (2024)
- 558 P.3d 716State v. Soliz (2024)
- 558 P.3d 804Walker v. Walker (2024)
Opinion - Noncite/Memorandum - Justice McKinnion - Affirmed
- 558 P.3d 804Bills v. Cooper (2024)
Opinion - Noncite/Memorandum - Justice Baker - AFFIRMED
- 558 P.3d 919In re Dependency of M.L.W. (2024)
- 558 P.3d 951Leon Van Buren Freer v. Jacqueline R. Freer (2024)
- 558 P.3d 1081State v. Wilde (2024)
- 558 P.3d 1146Wood v. State (2024)
Opinion - Noncite/Memorandum - Justice Shea - Reverses and Remands
- 558 P.3d 1216STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. COATNEY (2024)
¶1 Mitchell Kenneth Coatney (Respondent), was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) on April 21, 2006. His membership in the OBA was suspended in June 2022 for nonpayment of OBA membership dues for the year 2021 (SCBD 7059, 2022 OK 54 ). Likewise in June 2022, his name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for failure to comply with the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the year 2020 (SCBD 7058, 2022 OK 59 ).
- 558 P.3d 1218STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WADE (2024)
¶1 Complainant State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association has presented this Court with an application to approve the resignation of Respondent Charles Edward Wade, Jr., OBA No. 9256, 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.
- 558 P.3d 1220MARSHALL v. CITY OF TULSA (2024)
¶ 0 Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa, placed a pit bull mix with Loren Poss. Poss went on vacation and left dog with pet-sitter, Sarah Marshall. Dog bit Marshall when she attempted to separate a dog fight. Marshall sued City of Tulsa pursuant to the strict liability dog bite statute, 4 O.S. § 42.1 and common law negligence. The trial court granted City's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Marshall was an "owner" of dog and could not recover under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and City did not owe a duty to Marshall. Marshall appealed, and we retained the matter. We hold that Marshall is an "owner" under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and City did not owe Marshall a duty of care.