EDWARDS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

2015 OK 58

Summary:  The Canadian County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") ceased funding many of the operations of the Canadian County Juvenile Justice Center (the "Center") from proceeds generated from a 1996 .035% sales tax. This change was based upon an Oklahoma Attorney General's Opinion stating that funding of the Center from the tax was incorrect. Certain Plaintiffs sued for an injunction requiring the Board to continue funding the Center as before. The Plaintiffs sought and obtained a temporary injunction requiring the Board to continue to fund the Center as before during the court proceedings. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, and the Board appealed. 

Legal Issue: The sole issue before the Court was whether the trial court committed reversible error when it issued the temporary injunction. The Court held that it did not.

The Court noted that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent the perpetuation of a wrong or the doing of an act whereby the rights of the moving party may be materially invaded, injured, or endangered. In order to obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must show: 1) the likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm to the party seeking the relief if the injunction is denied; 3) their threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and 4) the injunction is in the public interest.

The Board argued that its action was based upon a valid Attorney General's opinion and therefore that the Plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court looked to the testimony and evidence presented to the trial court and found that the ruling was neither an abuse of discretion nor clearly against the weight of the evidence. The Court went on to examine the Attorney General's opinion and found it to be too narrow in its view of the resolutions underlying the sales tax.

Discussion: Legislators and government officials can ask the office of the Attorney General to issue advisory opinions regarding questions of unclear law. Public officials are required to follow any such opinions until they are found to be invalid by a court of law.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. NICHOLS

2015 OK 57

Summary: Attorney Robert John Nichols' license to practice law has been immediately suspended pursuant to an interim suspension. The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint alleging three counts of improper behavior and asked for an immediate interim suspension of Nichols' license to practice law.

Legal Issue: The Oklahoma Supreme Court is directly responsible for the accreditation of attorneys in the state of Oklahoma. This is accomplished through the Oklahoma Bar Association and its enforcement of the Oklahoma Rules for Professional Conduct for Attorneys ("ORPC").  If an attorney is alleged to have violated the ORPC, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). 

Because the change of status of an attorney from 'good standing' to 'suspended' is of public significance, all attorney licensure matters are published, regardless of whether a novel legal question is involved.

The Oklahoma Bar Association has filed a complaint alleging three counts of improper behavior by Nichols which allege violations of ORPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.15 (safeguarding client property), and 8.4 (misconduct). The complaint can be found here. Pursuant to RGDP 6.2A the Bar moved for an order of immediate interim suspension in order to prevent further misconduct regarding Nichols' IOLTA trust account.

Discussion: The Court granted the immediate interim suspension of Nichols' license to practice law and appointed a receiver to take control of the cases and accounts of Nichols' law practice. The receiver will bring Nichols' practice to a halt by notifying any clients or adverse parties of the suspension and will hold any funds present in Nichols' accounts in trust awaiting further order of the Court.

FARGO v. HAYS-KUEHN

2015 OK 56

Summary: Plaintiffs were travelling southbound on a two-lane rural highway. Three vehicles were travelling northbound. The first vehicle slowed to make a left-hand turn. The second vehicle, allegedly a large truck, continued on at highway speeds and passed the first vehicle by entering the southbound lane passing the first vehicle, then returning to the northbound lane. The driver of the third vehicle alleged not to know that the first vehicle had slowed or stopped prior to the second vehicle pulling into the northbound lane. Upon seeing the first vehicle, the driver of the third vehicle also pulled into the southbound lane allegedly to avoid a collision with the first vehicle. When the second vehicle reentered the northbound lane, the driver of the third vehicle alleged to first see the oncoming motorcycle. The third vehicle attempted to return to the northbound lane, struck the first vehicle, then also collided with the motorcycle. The second vehicle did not make contact with any other vehicle. In its post-accident investigation the Oklahoma Highway Patrol determined that the driver of the second vehicle caused the accident due to inattention and failure to stop. Drivers of the first and third vehicles were dismissed from the case. The driver of the second vehicle moved for summary judgment.

Legal Issues: In order to successfully sue a party for negligence, the plaintiff must prove three things: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury (2) failure to fulfill that duty and (3) injuries to plaintiff proximately caused by defendant's failure to meet the duty. It is well-settled law that the driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty to every other person to operate that vehicle in a manner consistent with what a prudent person would do under the circumstances. Even if a driver is negligent in the duty to operate the vehicle, that negligence must have proximately caused plaintiff's injuries.

The Court held that the question of whether proximate cause existed is generally a question of fact and is only a question of law when there is no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a causal nexus between the negligence and the injury. Questions of fact are to be determined by a trial and cannot be determined in a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Discussion: Justice Combs, joined by Justices Winchester and Taylor, filed a dissenting opinion. These justices would hold that the real legal issue was whether the driver of the second vehicle had a duty of care toward the plaintiffs, and that while the driver of a motor vehicle is under a duty of care to operate the vehicle, that a driver could not foresee that other drivers may act negligently or illegally. Looking to this lack of foreseeability, these Justices would have ruled as a matter of law that the driver of the second vehicle did not have a duty to the plaintiffs regarding the actions of the third driver.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. PITTS-CARTWRIGHT

2015 OK 55

Summary: Attorney Betty Ann Pitts-Cartwright has been allowed to resign her license to practice law pending disciplinary proceedings. The pending disciplinary proceedings included accusations of failure to communicate with clients, failure to appear on behalf of clients, failure to file pleadings, misappropriation of client funds; fraud, and forgery.

Legal Issues: The Oklahoma Supreme Court is directly responsible for the accreditation of attorneys in the state of Oklahoma. This is accomplished through the Oklahoma Bar Association and its enforcement of the Oklahoma Rules for Professional Conduct for Attorneys ("ORPC").  If an attorney is alleged to have violated the ORPC, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). 

Because the change of status of an attorney from 'good standing' to 'resigned' is of public significance, all attorney licensure matters are published, regardless of whether a novel legal question is involved.

An attorney who faces disciplinary proceedings may apply to resign her license. Such a resignation requires approval from the Court. RGDP 8.1 and 8.2. Resignation under these circumstances automatically results in a five year waiting period before the former attorney may apply for readmission. 

Discussion: Resignation with pending disciplinary proceedings is not an admission of guilt, and no forensic investigation has been made into the validity of the complaints against the attorney. 

PRESCOTT v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL PRESERVATION COMMISSION

2015 OK 54

Summary: Certain Oklahoma citizens challenged the placement of a Ten Commandments Monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol under Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Legal Issues: The Oklahoma Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. The challenge raised to the placement of the Ten Commandments Monument came not from the United States Constitution, but from the State of Oklahoma Constitution. Article 2, Section 5 reads: 

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

This provision is markedly different from the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court looked to the usual usages of the words "no", "ever", and "any" to mean a broad and expansive ban on such uses. The Court further ruled that prohibiting uses of public property that "indirectly" benefit a system of religion was clearly done to protect the ban from circumvention based upon mere form and technical distinction. Thus, the claim that the Monument was on display for 'historic purposes' is not applicable in that the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths. While a 'historic purposes' justification may be sufficient for the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, it is not sufficient under the ban placed in the Oklahoma State Constitution.

Discussion: The United States Supreme Court ruled in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), ruled that the Texas Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the challenge here was not brought under the United States Constitution. This challenge was made under the Oklahoma State Constitution. In the federal system of government all states must abide by the United States Constitution. However, the various states are free to operate within the confines of the United States Constitution and place burdens on the state government which exceed those placed on government in the United States Constitution, or to grant the state's citizens rights which exceed those granted by the United States Constitution. 

There have been calls for the impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling today. These calls are poorly founded. Rather, if one disagrees with Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution one should advocate for an amendment of that language.

LADRA v. NEW DOMINION, LLC

2015 OK 53

Summary: Ladra suffered physical injuries in her home from a partial building collapse caused by a 5.0 magnitude earthquake. She claims to have suffered damages in excess of $75,000. Ladra sued local oil and gas operators in Lincoln County district court, including 25 "John Doe" defendants claiming that their activities had caused the earthquake. Defendant's moved to dismiss the district court matter, claiming that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving oil and gas operations. The trial court granted the motion. Ladra appealed the dismissal.

Legal Issue: The sole question before the Court was whether the Oklahoma Corporation Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving oil and gas operations. The Court affirmed that the Corporation Commission did have exclusive jurisdiction over "the exploration, drilling, development, production and operation of wells used in connection with the recovery, injection or disposal of mineral brines." 17 O.S. §52.  However, the Corporation Commission is limited solely to the resolution of public rights, and is without authority (or means) to settle disputes between two or more private individuals where a public issue is not involved. Thus, the Corporation Commission can hear evidence and issue orders regarding the spacing and placement of wells, but it cannot hear cases where damages are sought by one party against another.

Discussion: While it was touted as 'allowing individuals to sue oil and gas producers for earthquake damages' when announced, this case really does not speak to that issue. Rather, the Court has announced that the issue of whether damages may be sought should be conducted through the state district courts, and not the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. 

ALEXANDER v. ALEXANDER

2015 OK 52

Summary: Rhonda Alexander filed for divorce from Joseph Dean Alexander on grounds of incompatibility. Joseph answered asking for a divorce based on incompatibility. Rhonda disclosed to the court that she suffered from a terminal illness and asked for an immediate divorce to allow her to leave her portion of the marital estate to her children. The trial court granted a divorce via court minute and ordered the parties to mediation regarding the marital assets. After this ruling, and before a journal entry was filed, Rhonda died. Joseph moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Rhonda had died and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Legal Issue: The question before the Court was whether a divorce, where both parties sought dissolution of their marriage, is effective at the time pronounced by the trial court even though property issues had not been settled and no journal entry had been filed. The Court ruled that it was.

When examining a motion to dismiss the Court will make a de novo review, taking as true all factual allegations. Ordinarily the Court will look upon a motion to dismiss with disfavor, but because a court must not hear any case where it does not have jurisdiction, a dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction is not so viewed.

The Court examined in detail the distinction between an enforceable decision and an appealable judgment. A judgment is "the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action." 12 O.S. §681. A document memorializing such a "final determination" must at minimum contain four elements: (1) A caption setting forth the name of the court, the names and designation of the parties, the file number of the case, and the title of the instrument; (2) a statement of the disposition of the action, proceeding, or motion; (3) the signature and title of the court; and (4) any other matter approved by the court. 12 O.S. §696.3(A). Additionally, the document must be filed with, and endorsed and dated by, the clerk of the court. However, pursuant to 12 O.S. §696.2(D), documents titled "Court Minute" or similarly are by definition NOT appealable judgments. This allows the trial court to memorialize its decisions without triggering appellate timelines.

Although a judgment is generally not "enforceable in whole or in part unless or until it is signed by the court and filed," Oklahoma law carves out an exception for divorce proceedings, where the adjudication of any issue shall be "enforceable when pronounced by the court." 12 O.S. §696.2(E). Thus, a divorce is 'valid' as soon as the judge announces that is so -- regardless of when it is eventually written down, signed, or filed. In other words, the decision of the judge has the effect of granting the divorce upon announcement but does not become an appealable judgment until it is properly memorialized.

Joseph's motion to dismiss was not aimed at undoing the divorce. Rather, Joseph sought to undo that portion of the proceedings that dealt with the division of property. The trial court in Oklahoma is endowed with sweeping authority to bifurcate issues of property, child custody, and child support in divorce proceedings. The trial court's decision of an immediate divorce and reserving issues of marital property was held to be effective, even though it had not been memorialized in an appealable judgment.

Discussion: The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals heard a similar matter in 2003. In Whitmire v. Whitmire, 2003 OK CIV APP 87, the Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter upon the death of one of the parties.  The Supreme Court overruled Whitmire, agreeing with the dissenting opinion in that case.