Subscribe: Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
action  company  compensation  court  district court  district  oklahoma  plaintiff  respondent  sect  trial court  workers compensation 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

The last 10 published decisions for the Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Last Build Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:33:13 GMT


AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. v. THYGESEN, 116394, 2018 OK 14, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶ 0 Petitioner is an automobile manufacturer and is the defendant in a manufacturer's- product-liability action in which the Respondent is the presiding judge. Respondent sanctioned Petitioner for its inability to supply the plaintiff in the underlying action with certain electronic data that pertained to the design process of the vehicle at issue, data that Petitioner asserts was lost pursuant to its data-retention policy. Petitioner now seeks the intervention of this Court, claiming that the Respondent's sanction order was not authorized by law. We hold that under the circumstances, 12 O.S.2011 § 3237 (G) prohibits the trial court from entering sanctions against Petitioner.

GAASCH v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., 113035, 2018 OK 12, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 06 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Plaintiff brought an action in the District Court alleging an insurance company failed to timely provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment as ordered by the Workers' Compensation Court. Insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the Honorable Patricia G. Parrish, District Judge. Plaintiff appealed and the Court retained the appeal. We hold: (1) Plaintiff's District Court action alleging breach of contract also included a request for damages resulting from the death of the workers' compensation claimant, (2) The District Court action was based upon alleged delay by a workers' compensation insurer in providing medical care as previously awarded by the Worker's Compensation Court, and (3) The District Court action against the workers' compensation insurer is precluded by an exclusive remedy provided by the Workers' Compensation Act. JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED


Tue, 06 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Initiative Petition No. 415, State Question No. 793, proposes to amend Article 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution by adding a new Section 3. The purpose of the amendment is to merge the rights and restrictions placed on optometrists and opticians, while eliminating restraints on the ability to practice their professions in retail mercantile establishments. A protest was filed contesting the validity of the initiative petition as unconstitutional logrolling in violation of the general subject requirement mandated in Okla. Const. art. 24, § 1. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 415 STATE QUESTION NO. 793 DECLARED LEGALLY VALID

JP ENERGY MARKETING, LLC v. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSUR. CO., 115285; Cons. w/115281; 115293, 2018 OK 11, ___ P.3d ___

Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶ 1 Plaintiff/Appellee JP Energy sought declaratory relief in the district court from Defendant/Appellant insurers Alterra, Navigators and BITCO after the insurers denied coverage and refused to provide Plaintiff with a defense in related litigation. 1 The trial court entered an order awarding summary judgment to JP Energy. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. On September 25, 2017, we denied the insurers' petitions for certiorari, and issued an order approving the COCA opinion for publication styled JP Energy Mktg., L.L.C. v. Commerce and Indus. Ins. Co. , et al., Case No. 115285, consolidated with 115,281 and 115293.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MIDDLETON, 115227, 2018 OK 7, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶0 The probate court disqualified one of two co-personal representatives nominated in decedent's will. The disqualified nominee had a felony conviction for DUI. The probate court ruled that this was a conviction for an infamous crime as provided in 58 O.S.2011, § 102 (2), and as defined in In re Dunham's Estate , 1937 OK 663 , 74 P.2d 117 and Briggs v. Board of County Commissioners , 1950 OK 105 , 217 P.2d 827 . The disqualified nominee appealed and asked this Court to retain this appeal.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BROOKING, SCBD-6496, 2018 OK 8, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Complainant Bar Association initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Respondent Attorney for turning back the date on the court clerk's filing stamp to show timely filing of a pleading that was late. Following a hearing, a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended suspension for a period up to six months. Upon de novo review, this Court finds that Respondent is guilty of misconduct and the appropriate discipline is suspension for sixty days.

CATES v. INTEGRIS HEALTH, INC., 114314, 2018 OK 9, ___ P.3d ___

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶ 0 Plaintiff/Appellant is a former patient of Defendant/Appellee's medical facility and claims that Defendant/Appellee wrongfully billed her, and others like her, for services. She filed this action in state court, alleging state-law claims for breach of contract, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and deceit. Defendant/Appellee successfully moved to dismiss these claims on the ground that they are expressly preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On appeal, we reversed and held that Plaintiff/Appellee's claims are not preempted. We now grant rehearing, vacate our prior opinion, and issue the following opinion that reaches the same result. 1


Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶ 1 The Court has reviewed the recommendations of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Committee for Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases to adopt proposed amendments to existing jury instructions and to add a new jury instruction codified as Instruction No. 3.19A. The Court finds that the revisions to the OUJI-JUV Instructions, Statutory Authority, Committee Comments, and Notes on Use should be adopted.


Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶ 0 An employee of a trucking company was killed while on the job at an oil-well site. The employee's surviving daughter brought a wrongful death action in the District Court of Oklahoma County against the owner and operator of the well site, Stephens Production Company. Stephens Production Company moved to dismiss the case pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2013 § 5 (A), which provides that "any operator or owner of an oil or gas well . . . shall be deemed to be an intermediate or principal employer" for purposes of extending immunity from civil liability. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that § 5(A) of Title 85A was an unconstitutional special law. The court certified the order for immediate interlocutory review, and we granted certiorari review. We conclude that the last sentence of § 5(A) of Title 85A is an impermissible and unconstitutional special law under Art. 5, § 59 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The last sentence of § 5(A) shall be severed from the remainder of that provision.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF M.A.S., 114237, 2018 OK 1, ___ P.3d ___

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶0 Biological father appealed the decision of the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, Sapulpa Division, Honorable Richard Woolery, declaring the minor child eligible for adoption without the biological father's consent. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, affirmed the trial court's decision, and this Court granted certiorari review.