Subscribe: Oklahoma Appellate Courts - All Recent Decisions
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
appeals  attorney  consent decree  count iii  count  court  decree  oklahoma court  oklahoma  petitioner  sect  trial court  violation sect 
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 Appellate Courts - All Recent Decisions

Oklahoma Appellate Courts - All Recent Decisions

Published Decisions within the last 7 days

Last Build Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:55:16 GMT


Supreme Court of Oklahoma:AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. v. THYGESEN, 116394, 2018 OK 14, ___ P.3d ___, Decided: 02/13/2018

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.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:THOMPSON v. STATE, F-2016-982, 2018 OK CR 5, Decided: 02/15/2018

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶1 Kendall Ray Thompson was tried by jury and convicted of Counts I and II, Manslaughter in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711 , and Count III, Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign (Misdemeanor) in violation of 47 O.S.2011, § 11-201 , all after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court of Haskell County, Case No. CF-2014-74. In accordance with the jury's recommendation the Honorable Brian C. Henderson sentenced Thompson to twenty (20) years imprisonment on each of Counts I and II, to be served concurrently, and a fine of $5.00 on Count III. Thompson must serve 85% of his sentences on Counts I and II before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Thompson appeals from these convictions and sentences.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:SMITH v. STATE, F-2016-184, 2018 OK CR 4, Decided: 02/15/2018

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶1 Appellant, Michael Lee Smith, was tried by a jury in Wagoner County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-451, and convicted of Count II: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in the Presence of a Minor, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2012, § 2-402 (C); and Count III: Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of 63 O.S.2011, § 2-405 . 1 At the conclusion of second stage proceedings, the jury recommended Smith be sentenced to twelve (12) years imprisonment and a $2,000.00 fine on Count II; and one (1) year in the county jail and a $1,000.00 fine on Count III. The Honorable Thomas H. Alford, District Judge, sentenced Smith in accordance with the jury's verdict and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Smith now appeals, raising two (2) propositions of error before this Court:

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals:BROWN v. STATE, D-2014-705, 2018 OK CR 3, Decided: 02/15/2018

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:00:00 CST

¶1 Appellant, Fabion Demargio Brown 1 , was charged conjointly with Brodric Lontae Glover and Emily Ann Matheson with two counts of first degree murder in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7 , and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 421 , in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2012-938. 2 The State filed a Bill of Particulars alleging two aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; and (2) the defendant committed the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employed another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration. 21 O.S.2011, § 701.12 (2) and (3).

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals:IN RE MARRIAGE OF MAHONEY, 114926, 2018 OK CIV APP 9, ___ P.3d ___, Decided: 09/08/2017

Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:00:00 CST

¶1 Respondent/Appellant Connie A. Mahoney (Wife) appeals from the trial court's order denying her motion to vacate a consent decree of dissolution. Wife sought to vacate the decree because it was signed by Petitioner John Mahoney's (Husband) sister, acting as his attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney, under allegedly fraudulent means. Husband died between the date of the consent decree and Wife's motion to vacate and Petitioner/Appellee The Estate of John Mahoney was substituted as the real party in interest. The trial court's findings that Husband was competent at the time the decree was executed and that the decree was not executed by fraud are supported by the weight of the evidence. The broad power of attorney form in this case gave Husband's attorney in fact power to enter contracts affecting property rights; more importantly, Husband directed his attorney in fact to sign the consent decree for him because his own signature was shaky. A consent decree of dissolution may be executed by an agent where such authority is not excluded by the terms of the power of attorney instrument. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wife's motion to vacate and we affirm.