STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WYLIE, SCBD-5429, 2008 OK 77, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION FROM THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KINSEY, SCBD-5388, 2008 OK 76, ___ P.3d ___

¶1 This Court notes Respondent's failure to respond to this Court's show cause order of June 19, 2008, and her continued failure to participate in the Rule 6 bar disciplinary proceeding now pending before this Court. On the Court's own motion, Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law effective immediately. This interim suspension shall remain in place pending an opinion from this Court which determines the appropriate final discipline to be imposed.

ASHIKIAN v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA HORSE RACING COMM., 103386, 2008 OK 64, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The State of Oklahoma seeks certiorari review of a Court of Civil Appeals' decision that affirms a district court's summary judgment for the plaintiff. John C. Garrett, trial judge, Sequoyah County District Court, held an order of the Blue Ribbons Downs Race Track Board of Stewards to be void for lack of jurisdiction.

GLASCO v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 105251, 2008 OK 65, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Michael Glasco worked as a security officer for the Department of Corrections. He suffered a work-related injury. The Department placed him on leave without pay, and he received temporary total disability benefits. After being on leave without pay for more than a year, the Department discharged Glasco pursuant to 74 O.S.Supp.2002, § 840-2.21. Glasco initiated a tort claim against the Department, alleging retaliatory discharge under 85 O.S.2001, §§ 5-7. The Department moved for summary judgment, arguing Glasco's discharge is governed by the state personnel statute, § 840-2.21, and not by the workers' compensation statute, § 5. Glasco responded and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing § 840-2.21(D) is discriminatory and a special law prohibited by the Okla. Const., art. V, §§ 46 and 59, and it restricts access to the courts in violation of the Okla. Const., art. II, § 6. On October 16, 2007, the district court filed a journal entry denying Glasco's motion for partial summary judgment and granting the Department's motion for summary judgment. Glasco timely appealed, challenging the constitutionality of 74 O.S.Supp.2002, § 840-2.21(D) and the propriety of the summary judgment. This Court retained the appeal.

McQUEEN, RAINS & TRESCH, LLP v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORP., 105553, 2008 OK 66, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma certified three questions under the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S. 2001 §§1601 , et seq. Two consolidated and reformulated first impression questions are addressed. The first question asks:

MASQUAT v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP., 104971, 2008 OK 67, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 An automobile owner brought breach of warranty claims against the manufacturer on behalf of herself and others similarly situated asserting a defect in the steering mechanism. The trial court granted class certification and the manufacturer appeals from that decision.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF NEILSON, SCBD-5371, 2008 OK 69, ___ P.3d ___

¶1 This case is before the Court pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A (RGDP), as amended, for consideration of Petitioner, Robert Davis Neilson's, Verified Petition for Reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA). The matter was investigated by the OBA through its Office of General Counsel and the OBA recommends favorable treatment of the petition by this Court. Further, a hearing was held in April 2008 before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT), which on April 29, 2008, filed a report with this Court finding that Petitioner meets the requirements for reinstatement and recommending the petition be granted and that he be reinstated as a member of the OBA. On May 19, 2008 the OBA and Petitioner filed a Joint Waiver of Briefs with the Court in which they request that we accept the PRT's recommendation to reinstate him and determine he be responsible for the costs of this proceeding.

SCHOVANEC v. ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 102028, 2008 OK 70, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Former parishioner brought an action in the District Court for Oklahoma County against his former priest, archbishop, and diocese and alleged claims based upon theories of assault, battery, respondeat superior, vice principal liability, negligent supervision, negligent retention, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The Honorable Bryan Dixon, District Judge, granted summary judgment to the archbishop and the diocese and certified that no reason existed for delaying in filing a final judgment on all claims alleged against these two defendants. Parishioner appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Parishioner's petition for certiorari was granted by this Court. We hold that the trial court properly granted judgment on the theories of respondeat superior , vice principal, and fiduciary duty, and other grounds not raised on certiorari, but erred in granting judgment on the negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy theories.

O'DARLING v. O'DARLING, 104107, 2008 OK 71, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Appeal arising from trial court's vacation of a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and dismissal of a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage between two women who were purportedly married in Ontario, Canada. We previously granted appellant's motion to retain and find:

ARVINMERITOR, INC. v. REDD, 104904, 2008 OK 72, ___ P.3d ___

¶0 Trial court and three-judge appeal panel found claimant's shoulder injuries not diagnosed until four years after last exposure, compensable, the statute of limitations being tolled. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed finding that claimant's shoulder injuries were not compensable as the statute of limitations had not been tolled and there was no evidence that the employer authorized treatment.