Vol. 1 | No. 4 | Jan 27, 2021
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
¶0 Voters in the City of Enid presented a recall petition to City of Enid officials. The petition sought to recall the plaintiff/appellant, City Commissioner, Ben Ezzell, for his support of a city wide mask mandate to combat the COVID epidemic. Ezzell filed an objection to the recall petition in the District Court of Garfield County. The City of Enid City Charter, Part D, Art. II, §6 applies state general election laws to city elections, unless the state laws conflict with the charter provisions. Ezzell alleged that because the recall petition did not comply with the requirements of 34 O.S. 2011 §3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 §6 which relate to signature collection, the recall petition was insufficient. After a hearing, the trial court denied Ezzell's protest and determined that the petition was sufficient under the City Charter of Enid recall process. Ezzell appealed, and we retained the cause to determine whether these state statutes are applicable to this cause, and if so, whether the failure to follow them rendered the recall petition insufficient. We hold that: 1) because there is no conflict between the City Charter recall process, and the additional state requirements, 34 O.S. 2011 §3 and 34 O.S. Supp. 2015 §6 , the state statutes governed, but were not properly followed; and 2) the recall petition is insufficient on its face pursuant to Clapsaddle v. Blevins , 1998 OK 5 , 66 P.3d 352 , and its predecessors. CAUSE PREVIOUSLY RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED.
CLAUDE C. ARNOLD NON-OPERATED ROYALTY INTEREST PROPERTIES v. CABOT OIL & GAS CORP.
| Decided 01/26/2021
¶0 Plaintiffs held an overriding royalty interest in oil and gas produced under mineral leases executed in 1973. In 2012, defendant began producing oil and gas from a new geologic formation on lands covered under those same leases. Plaintiffs sought payment of their share of royalty from the new production, defendant refused, and plaintiffs brought this lawsuit. Finding they continued to hold a valid overriding royalty interest under the 1973 leases, the district court granted judgment to the plaintiffs after a bench trial. The Court of Civil Appeals, however, reversed after determining that a statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claims in full due to a purported cloud on their interest arising from subsequently recorded oil-and-gas leases. Because the later-recorded leases did not reasonably give plaintiffs notice of any interest adverse to their own, we hold that their cause of action did not accrue until defendant refused to pay royalties on the new production in 2012. Plaintiffs filed a timely lawsuit. On certiorari granted upon plaintiffs' petition ...
TREAT v. STITT
¶0 Petitioners brought this action seeking declaratory relief that Respondent lacked authority to enter into two tribal gaming compacts on behalf of the State. The Court assumes original jurisdiction and grants the declaratory relief sought by Petitioners that the two tribal gaming compacts are invalid under Oklahoma law. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED AND DECLARATORY RELIEF GRANTED.
AMENDMENT OF RULES 3, 4 5 and 7 OF RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO PRACTICE OF LAW
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACK
Court of Criminal Appeals in the State of Oklahoma
Appellant Quincy West was tried by jury for the crimes of Conspiracy (Counts 1, 2), Robbery by Force or Fear (Count 3), Kidnapping (Count 4), Human Trafficking (Count 5), Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle (Count 6), Use of a Vehicle in the Discharge of a Weapon (Counts 7, 8), and Discharge of a Firearm into a Dwelling (Counts 9-12, 14-16), in the District Court of Jackson County, Case No. CF-2017-155. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the trial court sentenced Appellant to five years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00 (Count 1); nine years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00 (Count 2); ten years imprisonment (Count 3); twenty years imprisonment (Count 4); life imprisonment and a fine of $100,000.00 (Count 5); three years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00 (Count 6); ten years imprisonment (Count 7); twenty-five years imprisonment (Count 8), and eighteen years imprisonment (Count 9). The trial court merged Counts 10 and 11 into Count 10, and sentenced Appellant to eighteen years imprisonment (Count 10). The trial court also merged Counts 12, 14, 15 and 16 into Count 12, and sentenced Appellant to eighteen years imprisonment (Count 12). The sentences on all counts run consecutively, with credit for time served. From this judgment and sentence Quincy West has perfected his appeal. Judgment and Sentence AFFIRMED; case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. OPINION BY: KUEHN, P.J.: ROWLAND, V.P.J., CONCUR; LUMPKIN, J., CONCUR; LEWIS, J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR. Jan. 21, 2021.
Jerry Steven Gonzales v. State of Oklahoma
Appellant Jerry Steven Gonzales was tried by jury and convicted of the crimes of Counts 1-16 and 22-25 – Sexual Abuse of a Child and Count 18 – Possession of Obscene Material. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the trial court sentenced Appellant to one year imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 in Count 1, life imprisonment on each of Counts 2-16 and 22-25; and 20 years imprisonment in Count 18. From this judgment and sentence Jerry Steven Gonzales has perfected his appeal. AFFIRMED. OPINION BY: KUEHN, P.J.: ROWLAND, V.P.J., CONCUR; LUMPKIN, J., CONCUR; LEWIS, J., CONCUR; HUDSON, J., CONCUR. Jan 21, 2021
Sharonne Antonio Jackson v. The State of Oklahoma
Sharonne Antonio Jackson, Appellant, was tried by jury for the crime of Felony Murder in the First Degree While in Commission of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon (Count 1) and Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2) in Case No. CF-2018-336 in the District Court of Oklahoma County. The jury returned verdicts of guilty and set as punishment life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on Count 1 and ten years imprisonment on Count 2. The trial court sentenced accordingly and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. From this judgment and sentence Sharonne Antonio Jackson has perfected his appeal. AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to supplement record or for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. OPINION BY: Rowland, V.P.J.; Kuehn, P.J., concurs; Lumpkin, J., concurs; Lewis, J., concurs in results; Hudson, J., concurs. Jan 21, 2021
Nico Esteban Labelle v. The State of Oklahoma
Court of Civil Appeals in the State of Oklahoma
No published opinions this week.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS NOT FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA
The deadline is approaching to submit nominations for the Oklahoma Bar Association’s annual awards presentations. Awards are open to individuals and organizations who have positively impacted the community, and those submitting nominations do not need to be lawyers. Nominations must be received by 5 p.m. Friday, July 1 and will be presented to recipients at…
The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct impose on each member of the bar the duty to aid in guarding against the admission of candidates unfit or unqualified because of deficiency in either moral character or education. To aid in that duty, the following is a list of applicants for the bar examination to be given…
By Jim Calloway There is people law, and there is business/corporate law. Over the years, there has been a greater divergence in these two types of law practice focuses. But today I’m going to make the case that increasingly, these are completely different types of law practices, with different types of challenges and processes. Some…
Whether you are hiring, looking for a career move, offering office space or searching for a service - let the OBA Classified service help. For advertising rates and details, at email@example.com, or by telephone (405) 416-7018.