Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Grant Phillip Poppinga filed a paternity petition seeking custody, visitation, and support for his daughter with Arrianna Monet Wallace. Unable to locate Wallace, Poppinga attempted service by publication. When Wallace did not appear, Poppinga moved for a default judgment, which the district court granted, establishing his paternity and awarding him sole custody. Wallace later sought to vacate the judgment, citing errors in the service by publication and the default judgment. The district court denied her motion, and she appealed.The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the sufficiency of the service by publication and the district court's denial of Wallace's motion to vacate. The court found multiple errors in the service by publication, including misspellings, incorrect nature of the suit, and untimely publication. These errors were deemed fatal to the court's jurisdiction over Wallace. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court failed to conduct a proper judicial inquiry into the due diligence of Poppinga's search for Wallace.The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion in finding the service by publication sufficient and in denying Wallace's motion to vacate the default judgment. The court emphasized the importance of due process, particularly in cases involving fundamental parental rights. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to reconsider Wallace's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process, and to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "POPPINGA v. WALLACE" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2018, People's Electric Cooperative and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E) submitted competing bids to provide retail electric service to the Tall Oak Woodford Cryo Plant in Coal County, Oklahoma. The Plant is located in People's certified territory, which grants them exclusive rights to provide electricity under the Retail Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act (RESCTA). OG&E's proposal relied on the Large Load exception to RESCTA, which allows a supplier to extend its service into another supplier's territory for large-load customers. OG&E used third-party transmission facilities to provide service to the Plant without extending its own distribution lines.The Oklahoma Corporation Commission enjoined OG&E from serving the Plant, finding that OG&E was not "extending its service" as authorized by RESCTA. The Commission determined 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. OG&E appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and upheld the Commission's determination. The Court held that Article 9, Section 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution requires a limited review of the Commission's order. The Court affirmed the Commission's interpretation that the Large Load exception does not permit a supplier to use third-party transmission lines to extend its service into another supplier's certified territory. The Court's decision applies prospectively only and does not affect existing retail electric services and facilities established under the Large Load exception. View "OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE" on Justia Law

Jai Hospitality, LLC (Jai) sued Western World Insurance Company (Western World) after Western World denied Jai's claim for damages from a fire at Jai's motel, arguing that the insurance policy had expired. Jai contended that Western World failed to provide proper notice of nonrenewal or a renewal offer with a premium increase, which should have extended the policy term. Western World argued that it was not required to send notice directly to Jai and that the policy expired on June 1, 2020. Jai obtained replacement insurance in July 2020, after the fire.The District Court of Garvin County initially denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. Upon reconsideration, the court granted Western World's motion, finding that Western World made a timely, legally effective offer to renew the policy and was not required to send the offer directly to Jai. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that notice to Jai's insurance agent constituted notice to Jai.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in finding that Western World was not required to send its renewal offer directly to Jai. The court determined that the terms of the insurance contract and Oklahoma law required Western World to provide written notice of a renewal offer with a premium increase directly to the first named insured. The court concluded that notice to Jai's insurance agent did not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion was vacated, the District Court's order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Jai Hospitality, LLC v. Western World Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Claudia C. Conner, the plaintiff, was employed by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) as General Counsel and Chief of Staff. She was terminated in November 2021, at the age of over sixty, despite having satisfactory job performance and receiving a raise a month prior. Conner alleges that her termination was due to age and gender discrimination, and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by a state vendor. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter, leading her to file a lawsuit in the Oklahoma County District Court.The OESC moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Conner failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The District Court of Oklahoma County denied the motion, citing material conflicts between the GTCA and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). The OESC then sought and was granted a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that there are no material or irreconcilable conflicts between the GTCA and the OADA regarding the notice provisions. The court found that the GTCA's notice requirements apply to claims under the OADA. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the GTCA notice provisions is a jurisdictional requirement for tort suits against governmental entities. View "CONNER v. STATE" on Justia Law

Tracy L. Clark and Edward A. Clark filed a petition for the appointment of guardians of two minor children, K.D.B. and K.M.B., who are enrolled members of the Cherokee Nation, in Rogers County District Court in 2013. The district court granted temporary guardianship to the Clarks, and the Cherokee Nation intervened, noting their right to be involved under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In 2021, the Cherokee Nation requested a transfer of the case to the Cherokee Nation District Court, citing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oklahoma regarding jurisdiction over Indian children within the Nation's reservation.The Rogers County District Court granted the motion to transfer the case to the Cherokee Nation District Court, finding that the children were domiciled on the Cherokee Nation Reservation and that the Agreement mandated the transfer. The Clarks objected, arguing that the Agreement could not redefine "reservation" and that the children did not reside within the reservation. The district court stayed the transfer pending appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Cherokee Nation Reservation was never disestablished and that the children were domiciled within the reservation, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Cherokee Nation as per the ICWA and the Agreement. The court found that the Agreement was valid and applicable, and that the transfer to tribal court was mandatory under its terms. The court also rejected the Clarks' arguments regarding waiver, retroactivity, and due process violations. The case was remanded to the Rogers County District Court to lift the stay and transfer the case to the Cherokee Nation District Court. View "In re Guardianship of K.D.B." on Justia Law

Kelly Patrick Donaldson was convicted of second-degree rape in 2005 and became subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). At that time, SORA did not prohibit sex offenders from residing near parks. The Oklahoma Legislature later amended the law to prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a city park. In 2021, Donaldson sought to live in El Reno, Oklahoma, but was informed by the police that the property he intended to purchase was within 310 feet of a city park, violating the amended residency restrictions.The District Court of Canadian County granted summary judgment in favor of Donaldson, ruling that applying the 2019 residency restrictions to him violated the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court found that the version of SORA in effect at the time of Donaldson's conviction should apply, which did not include the park residency restriction.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the residency restrictions in 57 O.S.Supp.2019, § 590(A) do not amount to punishment and therefore do not violate the ex post facto clause. The court determined that the legislative intent behind SORA was civil and regulatory, aimed at protecting the public and reducing recidivism, rather than punitive. Consequently, the current residency restrictions apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they became subject to SORA. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Lake El Reno qualifies as a park under the statute and if the property in question falls within the restricted area. View "DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO" on Justia Law

Jared and Brandi Boehm filed a petition to adopt Jared's three minor children without the consent of their biological mother, Brittney Ramirez, alleging she had failed to pay child support for twelve of the fourteen months preceding the petition. The trial court approved the adoption without Ramirez's consent, finding she had not complied with the child support order. Ramirez appealed the decision after the final Decree of Adoption was filed.The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, excluding federal stimulus payments received by the father from consideration in evaluating Ramirez's compliance with the child support order. Ramirez then sought certiorari, arguing that the stimulus payments should have been considered.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that the trial court's refusal to consider the economic stimulus payments, which were received by the father and credited to Ramirez's child support debt, was an abuse of discretion. The court determined that the evidence did not support a finding that Ramirez had willfully failed to pay child support in substantial compliance with the court order for twelve consecutive months. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, reversed the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF N.J.B." on Justia Law

A firefighter retired and chose to participate in the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement Plan B program years after his divorce. His former spouse sought to enforce the divorce decree, which required the firefighter to pay her a portion of his Plan B benefits. The district court ruled in favor of the former spouse, ordering the firefighter to pay her a portion of the funds in the Plan B account.The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court's decision, construing the former spouse's request as an impermissible modification of the divorce decree. The appellate court held that final property judgments cannot be modified absent fraud. The former spouse then sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held 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. The court applied the precedent set by Baggs v. Baggs, which established that retirement benefits accrued during the marriage are divisible marital property. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment, allowing the former spouse to collect her share of the Plan B benefits, including interest. View "CUMMINGS v. SASNETT" on Justia Law

Four Native American tribes operating casinos in Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit in August 2020 to invalidate certain tribal-gaming compacts entered into by the Governor of Oklahoma and other tribes. These compacts were approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Interior by operation of law. The tribes argued that the Governor lacked the authority to enter into these compacts, violating Oklahoma law and their rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).The Governor, represented by private counsel, defended the compacts' validity under federal law, arguing that any provisions violating state law could be severed. In July 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a notice to assume control of the state's defense, asserting that the compacts were invalid under state law. The Governor moved to strike the Attorney General's appearance, arguing that he had the authority to retain counsel and that the Attorney General could not override this.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified a question to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma regarding whether the Attorney General could assume control of the defense over the Governor's objection. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the Attorney General could not take control of the defense in this case. The court emphasized the Governor's constitutional role as the "Supreme Executive" with the authority to select and direct counsel for the state's interests. The court also noted that the Attorney General could appear in the case but could not override the Governor's choice of counsel. View "CHEROKEE NATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" on Justia Law

Amber Standfill, the mother of a minor child, appealed the decision of the District Court of Oklahoma County, which denied her motion to terminate the guardianship of her child, G.E.M.S. The guardianship had been granted to the child's maternal grandparents, Patrick and Amy Christle, due to concerns about the mother's living situation and mental health. The mother argued that she had completed the requirements set forth in the guardianship order to regain custody of her child.The District Court of Oklahoma County held a hearing and heard testimony from various parties, including the mother, the guardians, the child's psychologist, therapist, and Guardian ad Litem (GAL). The court found that although the mother had substantially completed the agreed-upon standards of conduct, it was in the best interest of the child to continue the guardianship. The court noted that the child had experienced significant trauma and expressed a desire to avoid contact with the mother's new husband, Mr. Taff, who was involved in the circumstances that led to the guardianship.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the guardianship to continue, as terminating it would be detrimental to the child's welfare. The court emphasized that the best interest of the child outweighed the mother's completion of the guardianship requirements. The court also noted that the district court had set additional conditions for the mother to fulfill, including improving her stability. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining the guardianship of the minor child. View "IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF G.E.M.S." on Justia Law