Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Marsha Schubert, operating as "Schubert and Associates" (Schubert). Defendants Marvin and Pamela Wilcox were among the appellants in an earlier case that appealed summary judgments obtained by the plaintiffs on the theory of unjust enrichment against 158 "relief" defendants who had received more money than they invested in the scheme. Plaintiffs had sought to recover all amounts the relief defendants had received from the scheme in excess of their original investment. On remand, the state Department of Securities and the Receiver (Department) moved for summary judgment against the Wilcoxes on grounds that they were not entitled to the equitable relief provided for innocent investors because they were partners with Schubert and were actively involved in the check-kiting scheme operated by Schubert that supported the Ponzi scheme. In response, the Wilcoxes disputed that they were partners with Schubert. They stated that they were not aware of the existence of a Ponzi scheme in their dealings with Schubert. The trial judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the liability of the Wilcoxes on the Department's unjust enrichment claim. The trial judge found that by virtue of their participation in the Schubert check-kiting scheme, the Wilcoxes were not innocent investors. The trial court found that the Wilcoxes were unjustly enriched by all monies netted from their association with Schubert's Ponzi and check-kiting schemes. The Wilcoxes appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidentiary material provided by the Wilcoxes failed to raise disputes to meet their burden to overcome the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Depart. of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox" on Justia Law

The City Council of Tulsa decided to encourage the initiation of new direct nonstop airline service to business centers on the East and West coasts, and voted to approve a Memorandum between the Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA) and the City which would convey certain real property (Property) for that purpose. The transfer would allow TIA to mortgage the Property to the Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) in support of a non-recourse loan so that TIA could, in turn, make an aggregate loan (Great Plains Loan) to Great Plains Airlines, Inc. (Great Plains). This transfer would allow the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT) to enter into a Support Agreement, pursuant to which TIA, in the event of a default would have the option of selling the Property to TAIT under the direction of the BOK. Upon exercise of such option, the TIA would sell, transfer and convey the property to TAIT to satisfy the outstanding loan balance. Great Plains subsequently defaulted under the terms of the Great Plains Loan, and left a balance owed to the Bank. Ultimately TAIT did not purchase the Property. TIA and the Bank sued TAIT. TAIT alleged the Support Agreement was unlawful and an unenforceable contract because TAIT could not purchase the Great Plains Loan and Property by reason that all of TAIT's funds were airport revenues and such purchases would violate the FAA Revenue Use Policy. To resolve the matter, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement which provided the City would pay BOK. The City and its Mayor asked the trial court to determine that the settlement agreement was a lawful contract executed by the City, and the settlement payment made pursuant to the settlement agreement was a lawful expenditure of public funds. Taxpayers intervened, and asked the trial court to determine that the payment of money to the Bank of Oklahoma pursuant to the settlement agreement was an illegal transfer of public funds made pursuant to an unlawful settlement agreement. In granting the City's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found the settlement agreement was a lawful and the settlement payment was a lawful expenditure of funds. Upon its review, the Supreme Court concluded the settlement was not based on a contract, but rather under the equitable theory of unjust enrichment to the City of Tulsa, and as such, the City had authority to enter into the Settlement Agreement. However, the Court found that the unjust enrichment claim was unviable and the Statute of Limitations would have barred the unjust enrichment claim against the City. The Court remanded the matter back to the District Court to direct the repayment of the settlement funds from BOK back to the City of Tulsa. View "City of Tulsa v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner Ruben Espinosa sought permanent partial disability benefits for injuries to his hands, arms, and shoulders. The Workers' Compensation Court awarded benefits, but a three-judge en banc panel reduced the award to account for Petitioner's previously awarded benefits for injuries to other parts of his body. The Court of Civil Appeals vacated the panel, determining that both the trial court and the panel misapplied the applicable statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between two Court of Civil Appeals' opinions with differing interpretations of the limitations provided in the applicable statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that when the Workers' Compensation Court awards compensation for an accidental personal injury or occupational disease, pursuant to 85 O.S. 2001 Sec. 22(7), the sum of all permanent partial disability awards is limited to a total of 100% or 520 weeks (10 years) for any individual, but awards against the Multiple Injury Trust Funds, or awards for amputations and surgeries are excluded from both limitations. View "Evans & Assoc. Utility Svcs. V. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Petitioners-Appellees, Teryl Pearson and Robert Pearson (Pearsons) petitioned to adopt Teryl Pearson's (Pearson) grandson, G.D.J. The natural mother, Respondent-Appellant Tessia Bre Stubbs (Stubbs) contested the adoption. The trial court entered two orders on August 11, 2010, in favor of the Pearsons on their Application to Adjudicate Minor Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of the Natural Mother and in its Order Adjudicating Minor Eligible for Adoption Without Consent of the Natural Mother. Stubbs raised multiple issues in her attempt to block the adoption. Among them, she argued that the trial court erred in finding that she failed to contribute to the support of G.D.J., and failed to maintain a meaningful relationship with G.D.J. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to allow the adoption to proceed. View "In re Adoption of G.D.J." on Justia Law

Petitioner State Senator Jim Wilson sought review of the State Senate Redistricting Act of 2011, pursuant to Section 11C, Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution. Petitioner alleged the Act does not comply with the apportionment formula in Section 9A, Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution. Specifically, Petitioner alleged the Act does not pass constitutional muster because it "fails to create Senate districts which as nearly as possible provide for compactness, political units, historical precedents, economic and political interests." Senator Wilson did not explicitly identify every district in the Redistricting Act that he contended was not in compliance with Section 9A but claimed that he identified such districts by the maps provided in the appendix of his petition. Upon review of the arguments submitted by the parties, the Supreme Court found that Petitioner failed to show that the State Senate Redistricting Act of 2011 does not comply with the provisions of Section 9A of the Oklahoma Constitution. View "Wilson v. Fallin" on Justia Law

J.P. Fox is co-owner and general manager of Lumber 2, which is a retail home and ranch supply store. Fox and some company employees attended the Handy Hardware Show, a trade show in Houston, Texas, in 2003. They stopped at the "Hobart" booth of Defendant Illinois Tool Works (ITW) where they found Scott Massie, a sales representative of ITW. Massie showed Fox some new Hobart Champion 10,000 welder/generators ("Champ 10,000's) in which Fox had no interest because of the price. Massie asked if he would be interested in reconditioned units and handed him a list of items on a yellow legal pad. The list showed that ITW/ Hobart had eleven reconditioned Champ 10,000's for sale. The parties agreed orally that Fox would buy them for $1600.00 each. Upon returning to Oklahoma City, however, Fox received a telephone call from Massie who told him he could not deliver the Champ 10,000s to him because Hobart would not agree to sell them to Fox and Lumber 2. Massie told him the sales manager at Hobart refused to complete the sale because it would "screw up the whole territory" for its existing customers in the area. Thereafter, ITW/Hobart sold the welders to Atwood's, a much larger competitor of Lumber 2 which then sold them for $1800.00 each. Fox and Lumber 2 sued ITW for breach of contract, fraud, and for violations of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act (OARA) and Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA). A jury verdict was returned in favor of Lumber 2, and money damages were awarded on its claims for breach of contract and for violations of the OARA and the OCPA. The trial court denied ITW's motion for new trial. ITW appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed the judgment on Lumber 2's breach of contract claim but reversed it on the award of damages for the OARA and OCPA claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court was asked to consider an issue of first impression whether Lumber 2, as a retailer and purchaser of merchandise intended for resale in its business, was a "consumer" for purposes of the Act. The Court held that Lumber 2 was not a consumer under the OCPA, and it reversed the trial court on that issue alone. The Court affirmed the trial court on all other issues. View "Lumber 2, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Brian and Patricia Shull filed a medical malpractice action against Respondents Monica Reid, Andrew Elimian, Andrew Wagner, Eric Knudston and the OU Medical Center, alleging that doctors failed to properly diagnose a cytomegalovirus infection that adversely impacted Mrs. Shull's pregnancy. Respondents moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the Shulls could only recover damages related to the medical cost of continuing the pregnancy offset by the cost of terminating the pregnancy. The district court found the issue was one of first impression, and that it lacked guidance because there were no published Supreme Court opinions addressing the damages available to parents of an unhealthy, abnormal child who brought claims for wrongful birth and medical malpractice. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that in a wrongful birth action alleging malpractice, the measure of damages allowable is the extraordinary medical expenses and other pecuniary losses proximately caused by the negligence, and not the normal and foreseeable costs of raising a normal, healthy child until it reaches the age of majority. Parents cannot recover for emotional distress or loss of consortium. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Shull v. Reid" on Justia Law

The Oklahoma Publishing Company (The Oklahoman) and World Publishing Company (Tulsa World) (collectively, Publishers), filed open records requests with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of State Finance (OSF). Both the Oklahoman and Tulsa World sought to release of birth dates of all state employees. In addition, the Tulsa World requested employee identification numbers. The Oklahoma Public Employees Association (OPEA) filed two suits against OPM and OSF requesting declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to bar the release of employees' birth dates. The second suit also sought to bar employee identification numbers from disclosure. The district court consolidated the cases. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. Relying on an opinion of the Oklahoma Attorney General, the trial court sustained OPEA's and OPM's motions. It ordered that the state agencies be given sixty days’ notice to report their decisions on whether disclosure of date of birth requests would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; whether public access could be denied to employee identification numbers; and that legislative staff records were exempt from disclosure under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Oklahoma law already contains a non-exclusive list of examples of information that if released, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy. As guidance, the Court held that where a claim of invasion of privacy is made, courts should use a case-by-case balancing test to determine whether personal information is subject to release. If significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest in the disclosed information is minimal, release of that information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." View "Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Twenty three former tribal employees sued the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma for breach of employment contracts. The contracts contained a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Tribal law requires that waiver of sovereign immunity must be consented to by the Business Committee of the Tribe by resolution. The trial judge, on motion for reconsideration, granted the Tribe's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribe expressly and unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiffs' employment contracts. Upon review of the contracts and the applicable tribal resolutions and legal standards, the Supreme Court held that waiver of sovereign immunity was neither expressed nor consented to in the Business Committee's resolutions that authorized the Chief to sign the employment contracts. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma " on Justia Law

Plaintiff Matthew Hamrick sued Oklahoma for wrongs he allegedly suffered during his employment with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Plaintiff initially asserted seven claims against the State, grounded on both federal and state law. Plaintiff later dismissed all of the state law claims except his claim for unpaid wages under the Protection of Labor Act. Throughout his service as an investigator, Plaintiff’s employment status was that of a full time "unclassified" state employee. During Plaintiff’s tenure with OCME, the agency's scheduling required that its investigators work day shifts in the office, overnight "on call" shifts, and weekend "on call" shifts on a rotating basis. During the time in question, an investigator's scheduled office hours combined with the hours the investigator was scheduled to be "on call" commonly exceeded forty hours in a week. Plaintiff contended that OCME's "on-call" system was onerous and that he should have been compensated for all time he was "on-call." Citing the absence of precedential authority on the rights of unclassified state employees to pursue a claim for unpaid wages, Plaintiff and the State jointly requested the federal court to certify a question of law to determine the applicability of section 165.9 to such a wage claim. The federal court granted the parties' request and remanded the case to the Supreme Court to answer whether an unclassified state employee who alleges his employer failed to pay him wages has a private right of action under section 165.9 of the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that an unclassified state employee can bring an action under sections 165.7(G) and 165.9 of the Protection of Labor Act to recover all wages, including overtime, that were due but not paid on one or more regular paydays as provided by section 165.2. Furthermore, the Court held that an unclassified state employee cannot recover liquidated damages as provided in section 165.3 based on any such unpaid wages, and therefore the language in section 165.9 allowing recovery of liquidated damages does not apply to an action brought by an unclassified state employee. View "Hamrick v. Oklahoma ex rel. Office of the Medical Examiner" on Justia Law