Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joseph Parker was allegedly injured on the job. It was undisputed that Global Health Initiative (GHI), which at one time employed Parker, did not have workers' compensation insurance. Parker filed a workers' compensation claim in the Workers' Compensation Court. That court awarded Parker, by default judgment against GHI, $17,595.60 plus interest. Parker filed the judgment in the district court of Tulsa County in an attempt to collect the money awarded by the Workers' Compensation Court. After futile efforts to garnish the GHI bank accounts, Parker filed a motion to pierce the corporate veil and to proceed against individual GHI shareholders in an attempt to collect his compensation awards. The trial judge denied Parker's request due to lack of evidence. Thereafter, GHI filed notice of bankruptcy. By August of 2004, Parker had filed an appeal in which the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that stockholders could not be held liable for the workers' compensation award and remanded the case to the trial court. GHI did not defend or participate in the case on appeal. Parker did not pursue collection against individual shareholders but, instead, returned to the Workers' Compensation Court seeking permanent partial and permanent total awards and an increase in his original award. GHI was not served notice of this proceeding and the cause was consequently undefended. The Workers' Compensation Court entered another award in favor of Parker and against GHI totaling $236,476.20. In June of 2009, Parker, through his counsel, sent letters to some of the GHI shareholders, seeking collection of the shareholders' pro rata share for payment of workers' compensation awards. However, for unexplained reasons, not all shareholders were asked to pay "their portion" of the judgment. The plaintiffs-appellants, doctors Thomas Kenkel and Robert Gold were two of the doctor stockholders, and they appealed seeking a declaration that: (1) Parker had no valid judgment against them; (2) Parker was not entitled to proceed against them for the injuries he sustained; (3) Parker was not entitled to collect the workers' compensation judgment; (4) they had the right to defend against any of Parker's claims ab initio; (5) they were not shareholders of GHI at all but if they were, they were merely minority shareholders; and (6) they were not liable for the debts Parker is attempting to collect. The trial court agreed and sustained the doctors' motion for summary judgment. Parker appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded with directions for the trial court to enter judgment in the appellant's favor. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the issue of whether a business' failure to secure workers' compensation insurance rendered its shareholders personally liable for a workers' compensation award to an employee. The Court held that it did not. View "Kenkel v. Parker" on Justia Law

Claimant Viola Sugg sought permanent total disability benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund. The Workers' Compensation Court held that claimant's combined injures did not constitute permanent total disability and denied benefits against the Fund. Claimant appealed, and a three-judge panel reversed, finding that Claimant was a physically impaired person at the time of her last injury by reason of her 1989 adjudicated work-related injury and was entitled to permanent total disability benefits from the Fund. The Fund appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decision of the three-judge panel. Upon review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and was entitled to benefits from the Fund. View "Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Sugg" on Justia Law

Same sex couple planned to have a child and co-parent. Upon the termination of their relationship and following almost ten years of co-parenting, the biological mother denied plaintiff's status as a parent and sought to end all interaction between plaintiff and child. Couple did not have a written agreement regarding parenting. Plaintiff petitioned the District Court in Oklahoma County seeking a determination of parental rights and custody. The District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. The issue before the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction finding plaintiff lacked standing as a non-biological parent seeking custody and visitation. Specifically, the Court addressed: (1) whether the district court erred finding that a non-biological parent lacked standing because the same sex couple had not married and had no written parenting agreement; (2) whether a biological mother had the right as a parent to legally erase an almost ten year parental relationship that she voluntarily created and fostered with her same sex partner. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramey v. Sutton" on Justia Law

This appeal was one of many concerning natural gas wells operated from 1978 to 1998 in Beckham County, Oklahoma. In the immediately preceding appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for damages for breach of drilling leases for $3,650,000, but reversed two other jury awards in the amounts of $4,055,000.00 and $6,845,000.00. The trial court denied prejudgment interest and the royalty owners appealed. After review, the Supreme Court held that: (1) review of the issue of prejudgment interest is not precluded by the settled-law-of-the-case doctrine; (2) the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. 2011 sec. 570 et seq., was inapplicable to the facts presented; and (3) because the plaintiff's claims were unliquidated, prejudgment interest was not recoverable pursuant to 23 O.S. 2011 sec. 6. View "Krug v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc." on Justia Law

The Kirks purchased a house in Osage County from Buel and Peggy Neece in 1987. The Kirks signed a Contract for Deed that required monthly payments of $400 to the Neeces. In 1998, the Neeces sold their property to Thomas and Claudia McGinnity and assigned the Contract for Deed to the McGinnitys. The McGinnitys brought claims against the Kirks based upon breach of contract and a foreclosure of the contract for deed. They asserted that the contract for deed was breached by the Kirks due to (1) failing to keep the property insured for full replacement value, (2) conveying an interest in the property to Mary Komonce without express written consent, (3) committing and permitting waste of the real property, (4) failing to keep the buildings and improvements in good repair, and (5) failing to begin immediate restoration. The McGinnitys sought foreclosure as their remedy, with attorney's fees and costs, but did not seek damages. The Kirks asserted estoppel, waiver, duress, accord and satisfaction, laches and claims based upon breach of contract and abuse of process. The trial court denied the McGinnitys' request for judgment at the conclusion of their case in chief. Ultimately, the trial court determined that the Kirks breached the terms of the contract for deed. The trial court granted foreclosure on the real property in rem, quieted title in and to the McGinnitys against any claim of the Kirks and Komonce. The trial court reserved the issue of attorney's fees and costs to be presented to the trial court by a separate motion. The trial court found in favor of the McGinnitys on all of the Kirks' defenses and counterclaims. The Kirks appealed and the trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The Kirks petitioned for certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court held that the value of the property exceeded the amount due on the mortgage and no waste was present, but the District Court's finding that the Kirks breached the contract for deed was not against the clear weight of the evidence on the McGinnitys' claims of failure to maintain insurance and the property. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the McGinnitys and against the Kirks on their counterclaims. View "McGinnity v. Kirk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellees filed wage claim actions before the Oklahoma Department of Labor (ODOL), alleging their employer had refused to pay their wages for a substantial period of time. The Department of Labor ruled in favor of claimants and ordered employer to pay the wages owed. After an appeal to the district court which affirmed the order of the Department of Labor, the Employers-appellants appealed. The two issues raised on appeal were: (1) whether ODOL erred when it allowed Appellee-wage claimant Christopher Holland's joinder of multiple employers in a single wage claim; and (2) whether the ODOL court erred in prohibiting Appellants/Employers from presenting evidence at the Administrative Hearing. The Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative and affirmed the district court. View "Agrawal v. Ok. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Petitioner-claimant Jeanette Ball sought permanent total disability benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund. The Workers' Compensation Court held that a "Crumby" finding of preexisting disability made simultaneously with the adjudication of an on-the-job injury could be combined with the adjudicated injury to render the Claimant a physically impaired person under 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 sec. 171 and awarded Petitioner permanent total disability benefits. The Fund appealed, and a three-judge panel reversed. Claimant then appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the panel. After its review, the Supreme Court held that an employee must be a physically impaired person as defined by the applicable statute before he or she can seek benefits from the Fund. A "Crumby" finding of preexisting disability made simultaneously with an adjudication of an on-the-job injury could not be combined with such adjudicated injury to render the Claimant a physically impaired person under 85 O.S. Supp 2005 sec. 171. The Court of Appeals' decision was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Stockbridge Energy, LLC brought suit against Jim Taylor, John Groninger, Jr., and Taylor Drilling Corp. in 2003, alleging, among other things, a breach of the parties' partnership and agreement for oil and gas lease development in Osage County. Specifically, Stockbridge alleged the defendants failed to account for the profits and losses of the partnership, failed to transfer property according to the parties' agreement, engaged in "secret transactions," and misappropriated profits due the partnership. The individuals, Jim Taylor and John Groninger, Jr., specially appeared and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the petition showed no individual liability on their part and that the theory of "piercing the corporate veil" was not viable under the facts as pled. Stockbridge did not respond to the motion of the individual defendants and, on August 17, 2004, an order was filed wherein the trial court granted the unopposed motions to dismiss. There was no discussion regarding any amendment of the petition nor did the trial court's order of dismissal set forth a time to allow any amendments. More than four years after the order granting the motions to dismiss, Stockbridge filed a motion seeking to amend its petition to add Taylor and Groninger back in as individual defendants. Over the objections of the defendants, the trial court granted leave to amend by no later than May 20, 2009. Stockbridge filed an amended petition re-naming Taylor and Groninger, and also added a new defendant, David Bomberger. Taylor and Groninger appealed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment which agreed with the trial court in adding them back into the litigation after they had been dismissed years ago. The individual defendants argued to the Supreme Court that the time to amend the pleadings in this case, if any, should not have extended beyond the applicable statute of limitations or the one year savings clause to which a dismissed claim is otherwise subject. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the appellate court's order. View "Stockbridge Energy, LLC v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review centered on a dispute between Defendants-Appellants The Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County and certain citizens and officers of Canadian County, over the legal usage of funds generated from a sales tax enacted by the voters of Canadian County in 1996. In response to concerns raised over the legality of using funds generated by the Tax to pay for juvenile programs and services, in addition to the physical structures, an Attorney General Opinion was requested. The Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the matter in 2014. The Attorney General examined the resolution in question, Resolution No. 96-20, and determined that the language did not authorize use of the Tax for the funding of programs, salaries and expenses related to operation of the juvenile bureau, or even certain aspects of the physical facilities. In the wake of the Opinion, the Board ceased using the Tax for funding the programs, services, and salaries deemed outside the purpose of the Tax, and instead sought other funding sources for those items. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Board in the District Court in late 2014, seeking declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction pending a declaratory ruling, and a writ of mandamus by way of ancillary relief. In an order filed on January 28, 2015, the trial court granted Citizens' request for a temporary injunction, determining: (1) Citizens were likely to prevail in their request for a declaratory judgment; (2) the Board would not suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was issued; and (3) Citizens would suffer irreparable harm if the temporary injunction was not issued. The Board appealed, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof for a temporary injunction. After examining the available evidence, the Supreme Court determined that that the trial court's issuance of a temporary injunction was not an abuse of discretion or against the clear weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction was affirmed. View "Edwards v. Bd. of Cty. Commr's." on Justia Law

Petitioner Rodney Dutton sought an extraordinary writ at the Oklahoma Supreme Court to challenge his convictions in three criminal proceedings in the municipal court for The City of Midwest City. He also requested an alternative remedy that would compel the District Court to provide him with a new appeal of his convictions in the District Court. Dutton alleged that in 2013, he was convicted in the municipal court of the City of Midwest City on charges of assault, public intoxication, and domestic assault and battery, for which he received a thirty-day jail sentence. He stated that he filed three applications for post-conviction relief at the District Court after his release. The District Court dismissed the applications on grounds that they should have been filed with the municipal court in Midwest City. His application for the Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction was filed approximately one year and three months after his release. Dutton's claims, construed liberally because of his pro se status, alleged numerous constitutional violations and procedural errors at the municipal and district courts that entitled him to the relief he sought. The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction for the sole purpose of determining its jurisdiction to review Petitioner's allegations. After review, the Court held that it did not possess jurisdiction to either review the merits of Petitioner's cause of action challenging his municipal criminal convictions or compel the District Court to provide him with a new direct appeal of those convictions to the District Court. Dutton failed to show that he lacked adequate remedies in either a municipal court or the District Court. Dutton's claims were criminal matters and the Supreme Court declined to assume original jurisdiction on his claims or grant him relief on them without prejudice to him presenting them, in the proper court. View "Dutton v. City of Midwest City" on Justia Law