Ralph B. Hodges

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

procedure

This case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing a disciplinary complaint against attorney John H.T. Sheridan, alleging ten counts of professional misconduct under the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The misconduct included failures to communicate with clients, mishandle client funds by not depositing fees into trust accounts, neglect to file legal actions or complete agreed-upon work in matters such as a property easement dispute and a probate proceeding, and inadequate supervision of staff, along with not responding fully to grievances. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed stipulations, hearing testimony from the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, and evidence of violations of multiple rules, determining that the attorney had engaged in professional misconduct warranting discipline. The court's core reasoning centered on the attorney's admissions of incomplete work, lack of oversight, and rule breaches, supported by client accounts and the need for accountability in client representation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a priority dispute between two banks over proceeds from a factoring company's accounts receivable after the company entered bankruptcy. First Bethany Bank had perfected a security interest in the company's existing and after-acquired accounts receivable by filing a financing statement in 1997, while Arvest United Bank later extended loans to purchase two specific accounts receivable and claimed purchase-money security interests (PMSIs) in them. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that First Bethany's earlier-filed interest had priority under title 12A, section 9-312(5) of the 1991 Oklahoma Statutes. The court reasoned that PMSIs in accounts receivable, which are intangible and incapable of possession, do not qualify for the super-priority exceptions in section 9-312(4) or (8), and Arvest had not provided the required notice even if the accounts were treated as inventory.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a dispute over enforcement of a consent court order granting visitation rights to a child's paternal grandfather after the parents had separated and custody was awarded to the mother. The grandfather sought to enforce the order following the mother's unilateral termination of visitation, while the mother moved to terminate the visitation entirely, arguing it was unconstitutional absent a showing of parental unfitness or harm to the child. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that an agreed visitation order is not subject to collateral attack in modification proceedings and clarified that modification or termination requires the moving party to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or that the change serves the child's best interests, with the parent receiving special weight in the decision. The court rejected placing the initial burden on the grandparent to prove unfitness or harm and remanded for application of these standards. The decision distinguished initial grandparent visitation grants from modifications of existing consent orders.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a medical provider's request for payment of charges for treating a worker's job-related injuries after a 1998 joint petition settlement in the Workers' Compensation Court. The court held that the provider's Form 19 claim was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the limitations period did not begin until the final settlement resolved all aspects of the injury, including previously unresolved issues like bladder and bowel dysfunction. It vacated the lower court's order and remanded for the trial tribunal to explain the basis of its award regarding the Oklahoma Medical Fee Schedule, noting an inconsistency in applying the schedule while awarding the full unpaid amount claimed.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns a proposed class action by owners of 1996-1997 Chrysler minivans against DaimlerChrysler, alleging that the front passenger airbags were defective due to overly aggressive deployment and activation in low-speed collisions, in violation of express and implied warranties under the UCC as well as fraud and deceit; plaintiffs sought damages to replace the airbags with safer alternatives. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's order certifying a nationwide class of owners, applying the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance of common questions, and superiority under Title 12, section 2023. The court affirmed certification for the warranty claims but reversed it for the fraud and deceit claim, primarily because common issues of law and fact predominated and a class action was superior for the warranty claims, while state-law variations prevented predominance on the fraud claim.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a lawyer disciplinary proceeding against Jami Lynn Stewart under Oklahoma's Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, triggered by her federal criminal conviction, multiple reciprocal suspensions from U.S. bankruptcy courts for failing to disclose attorney fees in bankruptcy cases as required by federal law, and her failure to notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of those suspensions. The court examined certified copies of the conviction and out-of-state adjudications as conclusive evidence of misconduct, along with the respondent's submitted mitigating materials such as her plea agreement and presentence report. It decided that the record was adequate for review and imposed a four-year suspension from the practice of law, made retroactive to the date of her temporary suspension. The core reasoning was that discipline under rules 7.2 and 7.7 must safeguard the public interest and judicial integrity, account for the unique facts including her ongoing federal probation, and align with the severity of her prior agreed suspensions in other jurisdictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a divorced couple with two children where the father's annual income had risen from about $125,000 to $500,000 since the 1995 divorce decree that set child support at $1,500 per month based on combined parental income exceeding guideline tables. The mother sought modification of the award citing the income increase as a material change in circumstances, while the father argued that no modification was possible absent proof of increased needs of the children. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a substantial increase in one parent's income alone constitutes a material change of circumstances permitting review of an existing child support order in above-table cases, without requiring a separate showing of changed child needs, because parental income is a core factor in both initial awards and modifications under the state's guidelines. The court also ruled that the mother was entitled to appeal-related attorney fees and remanded the case for further proceedings on the modification request.

family law

The case involved a dispute between Satellite Systems, Inc. (SSI), a telemarketing company, and Birch Telecom of Oklahoma, Inc., an intrastate telecommunications carrier. SSI alleged that Birch fraudulently induced it to switch providers by promising local plus service, then failed to provide it and blocked reversion to the prior carrier, leading to damages. SSI sued for breach of contract and fraud; the trial court dismissed the contract claim but allowed the fraud claim to proceed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the certified interlocutory order. The court held that neither the state filed tariff doctrine nor the limitation-of-liability provision in Birch's tariff barred the fraud claim or limited damages to a prorated refund. The reasoning was that Oklahoma statutes and Commission rules embody policies against rate discrimination and for agency rate-setting authority but do not explicitly abolish common-law fraud claims, and tariffs govern rates and ordinary service issues rather than fraudulent conduct.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Ibarra v. Hitch Farms, worker Rodrigo Ibarra sustained a job-related injury in February 1999, received authorized medical treatment through April 1999 with the last payment made in June 1999, and filed his compensation claim in April 2001. Lower courts dismissed the claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations in title 85, section 48(A), holding that the period ran from the date of the last treatment rather than the payment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among Court of Civil Appeals divisions on the issue. The Court ruled that the limitations period begins to run from the last payment of authorized medical treatment, as clarified by the 1985 statutory amendment, making Ibarra's filing timely and remanding the case for further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether an order by the Oklahoma Tax Commission forfeiting an $18,000 surety bond posted by USF&G on behalf of taxpayer Sun River Development for unpaid sales taxes could be appealed directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Tax Commission had issued assessments in 1988 and a forfeiture order in 1999 after more than ten years, prompting USF&G to file a direct appeal while also seeking relief from the Commission. The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed because it was not properly brought directly to the Supreme Court under the applicable provisions of title 68. The core reasoning was that a surety qualifies for direct appeal under section 225 only when it incurs tax liability itself, not when it faces liability solely as surety for the taxpayer's obligations; in the latter situation, review must proceed through district court under the Uniform Tax Procedure Act. The Court also noted that its earlier denial of a motion to dismiss had been based on an incomplete review of the statutory scheme and was subject to reconsideration.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved two Oklahoma probation and parole officers who were disciplined by the Department of Corrections for using a civilian's pickup truck to pursue a fleeing probation violator during an arrest attempt. The DOC based the discipline on an alleged violation of a state law making it a misdemeanor for an officer to seize property without due process, but an administrative hearing officer reduced the penalties while still finding a violation. On judicial review, the trial court exonerated the officers, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers' temporary use of the truck did not constitute a prohibited seizure under the statute because it was a good-faith action taken out of necessity to protect public safety rather than an intentional dispossession without legal process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the Oklahoma Bar Association charged attorney Barry W. Benefield with four counts of professional misconduct for accepting retainers from three clients to file bankruptcy and probate matters, failing to complete the work or communicate with the clients, and not returning unearned fees or client papers, as well as failing to respond promptly to OBA grievances. The court conducted a de novo review of the stipulated facts and found violations of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.16(d), and 8.1, plus Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Considering a prior private reprimand for similar conduct and precedents involving neglect and non-cooperation, the court imposed public censure plus costs as the appropriate discipline.

procedure

This case concerned a dispute between Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) and Northeastern Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (NOEC) over the right to provide electric service to an area annexed by the Town of Chelsea. PSO sought to enjoin NOEC from serving the Chelsea Industrial Park based on its municipal franchise, while NOEC argued the annexation ordinance never took effect due to lack of publication after adoption. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the recording of the ordinance with the county clerk constituted conclusive evidence of a valid annexation under title 11, section 21-112, curing the town's noncompliance with the publication requirement in section 14-106. The court reasoned that section 21-112 is a curative statute designed to remedy procedural defects in the annexation process and to provide notice equivalent to publication.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a non-compete clause in an employment contract between a cardiovascular surgeon and his former employer, a surgical corporation. The employer sought to enforce the clause after the employee left and started his own practice, leading to arbitration and then court proceedings for injunctive relief and damages. The court determined that the appeal was not moot due to pending damages claims, that the arbitration award was subject to judicial review for whether the panel exceeded its powers, and that the non-compete provision violated Oklahoma law prohibiting unlawful restraints of trade under title 15, section 217, rendering it void and unenforceable. The court struck the offending sections and remanded for further proceedings on remaining issues.

business & regulatorylabor & employment