Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Joseph W. Hendricks challenged the constitutionality of the Sex Offenders Registration Act ("SORA") and its enforcement. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that applying SORA's requirements to sex offenders now residing in Oklahoma who were convicted in another jurisdiction prior to SORA's enactment but not applying the same requirements to a person convicted in Oklahoma of a similar offense prior to SORA's enactment, violates a person's equal protection guarantees. View "Hendricks v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael Bollin challenged the constitutionality of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) and its enforcement. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that when Bollin entered Oklahoma in June 2004, the law did not require a person with a pre-SORA conviction in another jurisdiction to register. Therefore, Bollin should have been held to the law in effect at the time he entered Oklahoma and became subject to SORA. Therefore, Bollin was not required to register under SORA. View "Bollin v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 2009, respondent Adrian Melton suffered an on-the-job accident while working for his employer, Joe Brown Company, Inc. He was awarded eleven weeks of temporary total disability, granted permanent partial disability, and a psychological overlay. The employer appealed the award, which vacated some parts and sustained others. In 2011, the employer appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) which vacated the permanent partial impairment award because it failed to comply with the AMA Guides (5th Edition), and that an "any competent evidence" standard of review was inconsistent with 85 O.S. 2011 sec. 340, so the court used the "against the clear weight of the evidence" standard which had recently been revised. Respondent petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the COCA decision, arguing that the appellate court should have used the "any competent evidence" standard. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that because respondent's injury happened before the new standard went into effect, the "any competent evidence" standard should have been applied. With regard to respondent's awards of disability, the Court found that psychological overlay was not supported by appropriate expert testimony. Accordingly, the benefits as they related to the overlay were vacated. View "Joe Brown Company, Inc. v. Melton" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sedrick Courtney filed for post-conviction relief based on exonerating DNA evidence. He asked the district court to vacate his robbery conviction and to determine his actual innocence for the robbery in order to pursue a claim for wrongful conviction. The court vacated the conviction but declined to determine actual innocence. Petitioner appealed this denial with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court (unsure which court to choose). The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction over the case (because review of requests to determine actual innocence fall within the Court's original jurisdiction). Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying petitioner's request for a threshold determination of actual innocence following the vacation of his criminal conviction in a post-conviction relief proceeding. Specifically, the Court held that the trial court erred in (1) ruling that petitioner had not presented clear and convincing evidence of his actual innocence in the face of the exonerating DNA evidence that supported the vacation of the conviction, and (2) dismissing petitioner's request to determine actual innocence without prejudice to pursuing such relief in a court of general jurisdiction. View "Courtney v. Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Appellants are a licensed bail bondsman and several insurance companies that issue bail bonds. They filed a complaint against defendant registered professional bail bondsman Curt Pletcher violated the Ten Bond Rule of the Oklahoma Bail Bondsmen Act by using a surety bondsman to write more than ten bonds per year in Oklahoma County. Pletcher filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition failed to state a claim because the Ten Bond Rule was held to be unconstitutional by the Sequoyah County district court. The district court judge enjoined the Insurance Commissioner from enforcing the Ten Bond Rule. Appellants argued that the Sequoyah County case was not binding on the Oklahoma County District Court because it did not involve any of the same parties and the decision was not appealed. The trial judge denied Pletcher's motion to dismiss. The trial court recognized that it was in the public interest to get the matter straightened out, but he did not believe that an injunction was the way to do so. He directed the parties to brief the constitutionality of the statute, the effect of the judge's ruling and whether the Insurance Commissioner was a necessary party. He advised the parties that in order to consider constitutionality he wanted a record made for the Supreme Court's review. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a temporary injunction to enforce the statute. View "Dowell v. Pletcher" on Justia Law

The biological father of H.M.W. and K.D.W. was in prison. He refused a writ of habeas corpus to attend the trial terminating his parental rights. When the case was called, Father's counsel requested a jury trial in absentia. In response, the State requested termination by default. Without ruling on these requests, the trial court heard testimony without a jury concerning the best interests of the children and potential harm to the children from continuing Father's parental relationship. In the end, the trial court denied the request for jury trial in absentia and granted the State's request for default termination. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the termination, but ruled that Father's refusal to appear resulted in a consent termination rather than a default judgment. Father appealed that outcome. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in terminating Father's parental rights without a jury trial, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming that judgment. Accordingly, both courts' decisions were vacated or reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "In the matter of H.M.W." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee James Starkey, Sr. petitioned the trial court for a reduction of his level assignment. He was a registered sex offender whose registration period was retroactively increased by the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff later filed a motion for summary judgment, contending he should have never been required to register. The trial court found that the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act was not meant to be applied retroactively and granted Plaintiff's motion. The Department of Corrections appealed. Upon careful review of the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed: it agreed with the result of the trial court's order finding that the level assignments were not to be retroactively applied, but disagreed with how the trial court determined what date the Act became applicable to Plaintiff. The trial court's decision was modified to apply the date of Plaintiff's entry with the intent to remain in Oklahoma following his conviction rather than the actual date of conviction in Texas as the critical point to determine which provisions of the Act would apply to him. View "Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a licensed bail bondsman and several insurance companies that issue bail bonds, sued for an injunction against Curtis Pletcher, a registered professional bail bondsman. They argued he violated the "Ten Bond Rule" by using a surety bondsman to write more than ten bonds per year in violation of Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs argued that after Pletcher (or a surety bondsman) wrote bonds on ten defendants in Oklahoma County in one year, subsequent bonds written in that county were illegal and the Court Clerk should have refused to file them. The Court Clerk moved to dismiss because power and authority to enforce the Ten Bond Rule lies with the Insurance Commissioner. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding it correctly ruled that enforcement of the Ten Bond Rule lies with the Insurance Commissioner and not the Court Clerk. View "Dowell v. Pletcher" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Wall (Patient) filed a petition for medical negligence against Dr. John S. Marouk, D.O. (Physician). Wall alleged that the physician negligently cut the median nerve in his right arm during a carpal tunnel surgery, resulting in loss of feeling in his right fingers. The patient did not attach an affidavit of merit as required by 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19. The physician filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the patient failed to include the affidavit of merit. In response to the physician's motion to dismiss, the patient argued that 12 O.S 2011 sec.19 was unconstitutional based on this court's holding in "Zeier v. Zimmer." The trial court entered a certified interlocutory order denying the physician's motion to dismiss, and giving the patient twenty days from the date of the order to file an affidavit of merit or face dismissal of the cause. The trial court subsequently entered an amended certified interlocutory order stating that 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 required an affidavit of merit finding the patient's arguments unpersuasive. The Supreme Court granted the patient's Petition for Certiorari to consider the constitutionality of 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Title 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 created a monetary barrier to access the court system, and then applied that barrier only to a specific subclass of potential tort victims, those who are the victims of professional negligence. The result was a law that was unconstitutional both as a special law, and as an undue financial barrier on access to the courts. "Although we express no opinion on the viability of the patient's claim, because we hold 12 O.S. 2011 sec. 19 to be unconstitutional, an affidavit of merit is not required." The district court's order requiring submission of an affidavit of merit was overruled, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wall v. Marouk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Cox Retirement Properties, alleging Richard Douglas died as a result of the facility's negligent care and treatment. Defendant moved to dismiss the case for Plaintiff's failure to comply with 12 O.S. Supp. 2009 19. Section 19 was enacted in 2009 as part of H.B. 1603, known as the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009. Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss, arguing the CLRA of 2009 was unconstitutional logrolling in violation of the single-subject rule of Article 5, section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The trial court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and certified the dismissal order for immediate review. The Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's Petition for Certiorari and held that hold that H.B. 1603 violated the single-subject rule of Article 5, section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution and was unconstitutional and void in its entirety. View "Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc." on Justia Law