This case involves the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewing a recommendation from the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association to suspend bar members who failed to meet mandatory continuing legal education requirements for 2003. The court ordered the suspension of the listed attorneys from bar membership and from the practice of law in Oklahoma pursuant to the Supreme Court's rules on mandatory continuing legal education. The decision applies to each individual named in the attached exhibit based on their documented non-compliance. Justices Hodges, Lavender, Hargrave, Kauger, Boudreau, Winchester, and Edmondson concurred in the order.
In this divorce case, the parties initially agreed to joint custody of their minor child, but the father later moved to modify the arrangement after the mother sought a protective order and planned to change the child's school. Following a hearing where the trial court privately consulted the child's counselor with the parties' consent, the court terminated joint custody and awarded primary custody to the father. The mother appealed, arguing that she was denied the opportunity to present evidence and that the proceedings violated due process. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal—such as a transcript or offer of proof—to demonstrate any error, requiring the court to presume the lower court's decision was supported by the evidence and proper.
The case concerned whether a trial court could impose a fine and jail sentence on Jennifer Henry for indirect contempt after she failed to appear for hearings in a child custody modification proceeding stemming from a paternity action, despite her claims of car trouble and illness that were contradicted by evidence. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court had statutory authority to impose punitive sanctions and a fine for indirect contempt without providing an opportunity to purge the sentence. However, it reversed the contempt finding because the trial court had applied the incorrect clear-and-convincing evidence standard instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and had denied Henry's statutory right to a jury trial. The court's reasoning rested on Oklahoma's constitutional and statutory framework, which classifies contempt as direct or indirect and permits penal punishments for willful disobedience while mandating due process protections.
The case involved a nursing home cook who was terminated after leaving his shift to seek emergency medical treatment for vomiting and diarrhea, despite being instructed not to depart. He sued for wrongful termination under the Burk public policy exception to at-will employment, alleging the discharge violated statutes in title 63 that prohibit preparing or holding food under insanitary conditions that may render it diseased or injurious to health. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cited statutes articulate a clear, compelling public policy sufficient to support a Burk claim if the plaintiff's allegations are proven. The court emphasized that review of a motion to dismiss requires assuming the facts alleged are true and determining only whether any set of facts could support relief.
This case involved a challenge to Initiative Petition No. 27 of Oklahoma City, which sought to create a Labor Relations Board, establish collective bargaining and arbitration processes for permanent non-supervisory city employees (excluding police and fire), and prohibit strikes. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the petition legally insufficient for submission to voters. The court determined that the petition addressed administrative rather than legislative matters, as it dealt with specific employment conditions such as wages, benefits, and working arrangements that involved temporary and specialized decisions, consistent with precedents like Fite v. Lacey interpreting article XVIII, section 4(a) of the Oklahoma Constitution. The court also denied a motion to dismiss the city clerk as a necessary party in the proceedings.
The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing disciplinary charges against attorney John H.T. Sheridan for ten counts of alleged violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, stemming from his handling of client matters such as a property easement dispute and probate proceedings. The court considered stipulated facts and testimony from a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, which revealed issues including failure to communicate with clients, not performing agreed-upon legal services, mishandling client funds by not depositing them in trust accounts, and delays in providing refunds. The court's core reasoning focused on the attorney's responsibility to supervise staff and fulfill professional obligations, attributing problems partly to inadequate oversight of his ex-wife who assisted in the office, while evaluating whether the evidence met the clear and convincing standard for misconduct.