Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The State of Oklahoma sought to terminate the parental rights of Albert Parker, the natural father of J.O., a child who is a member of the Choctaw Nation. Parker was unaware of his paternity until genetic testing confirmed it in June 2022. The State filed a petition alleging that J.O. was deprived while in the mother's care, and the child was adjudicated deprived. Parker, who was incarcerated, had limited contact with J.O. and had not established a relationship with the child. The trial court terminated Parker's parental rights after a jury trial.The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Parker's due process rights were violated and that the State was not required to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. Both Parker and the State petitioned for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that Parker's due process rights were indeed violated when the trial continued without his presence after his video feed was disconnected. The court also determined that the ICWA requirements apply in this case, regardless of whether Parker had a prior relationship with J.O. The court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for a new trial, ensuring compliance with ICWA and OICWA provisions. View "In re J.O." on Justia Law

Sarah Marshall, a pet-sitter, was bitten by a pit bull mix named Julian while attempting to separate a dog fight. Julian had been placed with Loren Poss by Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa. Poss, who was fostering Julian, left him with Marshall while she went on vacation. Marshall sued the City of Tulsa under the strict liability dog bite statute, 4 O.S. § 42.1, and for common law negligence.The District Court of Tulsa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Marshall was considered an "owner" of the dog under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and thus could not recover under the statute. The court also found that the City did not owe a duty of care to Marshall. Marshall appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marshall was indeed an "owner" under 4 O.S. § 42.1 when read in conjunction with the Tulsa Municipal Ordinance, which defines an owner as anyone having care, maintenance, or control of a dog. The court also held that the City did not owe a duty of care to Marshall because her injury was not foreseeable, as there was no evidence that Julian had shown signs of aggression prior to the incident. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. View "MARSHALL v. CITY OF TULSA" on Justia Law

The case involves an order issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Commission) that prevented certain utilities from billing customers for municipal franchise fees and municipal gross receipts taxes based on securitized revenue, as per the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. The City of Oklahoma City challenged this order, arguing that it unlawfully canceled municipal taxes and franchise fees, and exceeded the Commission's jurisdiction.The Public Utilities Division (PUD) of the Commission filed an application to prevent utilities from billing customers for these fees and taxes, arguing that such charges would result in a windfall for municipalities. The Commission granted the PUD's application, concluding that the fees and taxes related to extraordinary fuel costs from the 2021 winter storm should not be collected from customers. The Oklahoma Municipal League (OML) intervened, arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to alter franchise agreements and that the fees were legal obligations of the utilities.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and determined that the OML had standing in the controversy. The Court found that the Commission's determination that the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act changed or altered a utility's legal obligations concerning municipal franchise fees and gross receipts taxes was not sustained by law. The Court held that the Commission did not have the authority to determine the legality of these fees and taxes or to prevent their collection based on securitized revenue.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the Commission's order, concluding that the Commission's decision was not supported by the law. The case was remanded to the Corporation Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. View "CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION" on Justia Law

In August 2014, a train operated by BNSF Railway Company collided with a pickup truck driven by Paul Watson at a railroad crossing in Pawnee County, Oklahoma. Watson, who was not wearing a seatbelt, died instantly, while his wife Terri and their minor child, both belted, survived with injuries. Terri Watson, on behalf of herself, her child, and as a representative of her deceased husband's estate, filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against BNSF, alleging negligent maintenance of the crossing and failure to install adequate safety features.The case went to trial, and after three weeks of testimony and evidence, the jury found in favor of BNSF on all claims. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, found prejudicial errors in the jury instructions, specifically noting that the instructions were biased in favor of BNSF and required an excessive degree of care from Watson. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on certiorari. The court found that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were not so prejudicial as to mislead the jury. The court noted that the instructions accurately reflected Oklahoma law and did not impose a higher standard of care on Watson than required. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and reinstated the jury's verdict in favor of BNSF. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "WATSON v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY" on Justia Law

Kiefer Production Company (KPC), a non-party, appealed adverse discovery orders related to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Keetons, co-trustees and co-personal representatives of Noma Rongey's estate. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) dismissed the appeal, stating the orders were not appealable. KPC then petitioned for certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.The district court had previously denied the Owners' motion to quash the subpoena and ordered KPC to produce financial documents to determine the value of Rongey's interest in KPC. The district court also placed Rongey's interest in pay status. COCA partially affirmed the district court's order but remanded the case to address the implications of Rongey's death and the scope of the documents requested. On remand, the district court denied KPC's renewed motion to quash and granted the Keetons' motion to compel the production of documents.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the discovery orders were appealable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering KPC to produce the documents. The court found that KPC, as a non-party, had a substantial right affected by the orders and that the orders conclusively determined the issue of document production. The court also held that KPC's financial documents, including tax returns, were relevant to determining the value of Rongey's interest in KPC and were therefore discoverable.The Supreme Court vacated COCA's opinion and affirmed the district court's judgment, requiring KPC to comply with the subpoena. The court also held that KPC did not have standing to appeal the order placing Rongey's interest in pay status, as this issue was not final and was subject to further proceedings. View "ROYAL HOT SHOT INVESTMENTS v. KIEFER PRODUCTION CO." on Justia Law