COFFEE v. HENRY, 106839, 2010 OK 4, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Proceeding to assume original jurisdiction to resolve a dispute between the Legislature and Governor over use of the line item veto provided by Okla Const. Art. 6, § 12.

ESTATE OF CROWELL v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 106374, 2010 OK 5, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Eva June Crowell died following an acute asthma attack that she suffered while incarcerated in the Cleveland County Jail. The personal representative of her estate brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 against the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, the Sheriff of Cleveland County, and the sheriff's jail personnel on duty at the time of the attack. The personal representative alleged that Ms. Crowell's death was caused by unnecessary delay on the part of the sheriff's jail personnel in providing an inhaler to her. The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that the delay in providing the inhaler was not actionable under § 1983, because the delay did not involve deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner. The trial court granted defendants' second motion for summary judgment, finding that the record showed no dispute of material fact on the issue of deliberate indifference. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The personal representative timely sought certiorari review by this Court. We hold that the personal representative failed to support a viable claim against the Board of County Commissioners and affirm the summary judgment in favor of the Board. However, the summary judgment record reveals a controversy upon which reasonable minds could differ on the issue of whether the sheriff and jail personnel acted with deliberate indifference in the delay to provide the inhaler. The summary judgment entered in favor of these defendants is reversed and the matter is remanded for trial.

FENT v. STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, 107116, 2010 OK 2, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The petitioner, Jerry R. Fent, has filed an application asking this Court to assume original jurisdiction and declare unconstitutional 28 O.S. Supp. 2008 § 152 (D)(E) and (F) as well as 28 O.S. Supp. 2008 § 152.1 (B), which require a portion of fees paid to the court clerks in civil actions be credited or deposited to the accounts of certain non-judicial programs. After oral argument before the Court en banc, the application to assume original jurisdiction was granted. We hold that the aforesaid statutory provisions violate Okla. Const., art. 2§ 6.

ROGERS v. QUIKTRIP CORP., 106684, 2010 OK 3, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendants urging the latter sold gasoline containing the additive ethanol without disclosing to customers the ethanol content of the fuel. They brought suit based on breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 O.S. § 751 et seq . The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The District Court in Pottawatomie County, Douglas L. Combs, Judge, denied the motion and ruled (1) he had jurisdiction over the cause and (2) the defendants had a duty to disclose the ethanol content of gasoline. The trial judge's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss was certified for immediate interlocutory review. Certiorari was granted.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. POPE, SCBD-5486; OBAD-1776, 2010 OK 1, ___ P.3d ___

¶1 On December 10, 2008, the Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), notified the Office of the Chief Justice that the respondent, Eddie Michael Pope (lawyer/respondent), had pled guilty to possession of obscene material in Texas and had been given a four year deferred sentence. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas (Board), issued a judgment of suspension which suspended the respondent during the term of his deferred adjudication (until April 23, 2010).

MURRELL v. COX, 106814; No. 107579, 2009 OK 93, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Mother became sole legal custodian of her minor son following the voluntary termination of a guardianship by the child's paternal grandparents and the subsequent death of the child's father. Paternal grandparents petitioned for visitation pursuant to Oklahoma's grandparent visitation statute. The trial court acknowledged the mother's status as sole legal custodian but granted the grandparents "visitation" for five days of each week. They have maintained physical custody and control of the child and excluded mother from certain decisions regarding preschool. Mother brought an appeal from the order granting grandparent visitation, No. 106,814, and later brought an original proceeding, No. 107,579, seeking extraordinary relief to effect the return of her son to her custody and to prevent further interference with the exercise of her parental rights by the trial court.

CARTER v. SCHUSTER, 102602, 2009 OK 94, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Marie J. Carter, D.O., and her professional corporation, plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the judgment of the trial court, which vacated an arbitration award against Michael Schuster, defendant-appellee. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to confirm the arbitration award against Schuster.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHOMBER, SCBD-5519, 2009 OK 95, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association, the complainant, brought a seven-count complaint against Melissa Anne Shomber, the respondent. The respondent is currently suspended for failure to complete the requirements of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and for failure to pay Bar Association dues. The respondent has failed to respond to the grievances, did not attend her disciplinary hearing, failed to enter an appearance before this Court, and failed to file a brief. After the disciplinary hearing, The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended that the respondent be disbarred.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIS, SCBD-5543, 2009 OK 96, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION FROM OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION WHILE UNDER SUSPENSION AND PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

REYNOLDS v. ADVANCE ALARMS, INC., 106989, 2009 OK 97, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Pursuant to Oklahoma's Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.2001, §§ 1601-1611, the Honorable Gregory K. Frizzell, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, certified the following question of law to this Court: "Does the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act, 40 O.S. §§ 165.2 , 165.7, 165.8 and 199, provide an established and well-defined public policy sufficient to support a Burk tort claim?" We reformulate the question of law within the confines of the federal district court's statement of relevant facts to read as follows: Does the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act, 40 O.S.2001 and Supp.2006, §§ 165.2 , 165.7,and 165.8 and 40 O.S.2001, § 199 , provide an established and well-defined public policy sufficient to support a Burk tort claim based on allegations that the employee was wrongfully discharged for contesting the employer's lunch-break policy? We answer in the negative.