STATE ex rel. REDMAN v. $122.44, 106292, 2010 OK 19, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The District Court of Bryan County forfeited a gun safe and the weapons it contained, based on a finding these items facilitated the owner's possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. By a majority opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the forfeiture of the weapons, but reversed the forfeiture of the safe. This court previously granted the owner's petition for certiorari. Upon certiorari review, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reverse the trial court's forfeiture and remand with instructions.

NOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS v. EDMONDSON, 107592, 2010 OK 21, ___ P.3d ___

¶4-5 that:

ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTIFIED AND LICENSED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, SCAD-2010-10, 2010 OK 20, ___ P.3d ___

No Description Available, please check the website.

TUCKER v. NEW DOMINION, L.L.C., 106322, 2010 OK 14, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Plaintiffs brought a quiet title suit in which they asked for an accounting against the defendant who had obtained an order from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission pooling the plaintiffs' mineral interest. The plaintiffs alleged that their mineral interest had not been brought within the Commission's jurisdiction because publication notice showed the name of Olinka Hardy instead of the name Olinka Hrdy, the record owner at the time. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court rendered judgment in the defendant's favor. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the case. The defendant sought review in this Court, and we granted the writ of certiorari.

OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF SECURITIES v. BLAIR, 104004, 2010 OK 16, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 A receiver appointed in a proceeding in the District Court of Logan County joined with the Oklahoma Department of Securities and its Administrator and brought actions in the District Court for Oklahoma County against investors in a Ponzi scheme and sought judgments against them for any amounts they had received from the scheme in excess of their original investments. The Honorable Patricia G. Parrish, District Judge, granted summary judgment against the investors by separate orders in Oklahoma County causes CJ-2005-3796 (consolidated with CJ-2005-3299). Several of the defendants appealed in four separate appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgments of the District Court by separate opinions in Supreme Court Nos. 104,004, 104,161, and consolidated 104,262/104,304. The investors requested that certiorari issue in this Court to the Court of Civil Appeals. In Oklahoma County Cause No. CJ-2005-3799, the Honorable Vicki Robertson, District Judge, granted a partial summary adjudication to the Oklahoma Department of Securities against investors, stayed proceedings in the District Court, and certified three issues for an immediate appeal that was brought in No. 105,682. We hold that the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act provides authority for the Department of Securities to bring an action against innocent investors in a Ponzi scheme when they received a profit from the Ponzi scheme that is in excess of their original investment and when the profit is an unreasonable return on the investment. We hold that a District Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate competing claims of ownership to funds that were part of an investment scheme which violated the securities laws. We hold that a court-appointed receiver for the assets of a failed Ponzi-scheme operator may bring a proceeding for equitable relief against innocent investors for recovery of funds that qualify as an unjust enrichment obtained by the investors from the Ponzi scheme. We hold that an innocent investor in a Ponzi scheme may use equitable setoffs in defense against an unjust enrichment claim brought by the Department.

ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTIFIED AND LICENSED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, SCAD-2010-10, 2010 OK 15, ___ P.3d ___

No Description Available, please check the website.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF WHITE, SCBD-5566, 2010 OK 17, ___ P.3d ___

¶1 On September 29, 2009, Alisa Ann Shaddix White (petitioner) filed her petition for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and to the Roll of Attorneys pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2001, ch.1, app.1-A. No objection to the petition for reinstatement has been filed.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF STEEDMAN, SCBD-5541, 2010 OK 18, ___ P.3d ___

No Description Available, please check the website.

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, SCAD-2010-10, 2010 OK 13, ___ P.3d ___

No Description Available, please check the website.

KEOTA MILLS & ELEVATOR v. GAMBLE, 103149, 2010 OK 12, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The appellant/plaintiff, Keota Mills (Keota), brought an action against the appellee/defendant, Othel Gamble, Jr. (Gamble), to recover from an alleged default on a promissory note executed in 1989. Gamble argued that the suit was time-barred by the five year limitation period of 12 O.S. 1981 §95 , which was in effect when the note was executed. Keota insisted that the six year limitation period of 12A O.S. Supp. 1992 §3-118 (a), which became effective January 1, 1992, was applicable. The parties stipulated to the issue and the facts. The trial court determined that the action was untimely, and Keota appealed. We hold that under the stipulated facts, payments made on the note for the years 1999 through 2001, which were intended to apply towards the balance of the note, extended the limitations period pursuant to 12 O.S. 2001 §101 . Consequently, the action which was brought within three months of the last payment in 2001, was timely under either statute.