<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/start.asp?submitted=true&amp;court=OK+CIV+APP&amp;days=30</link><description>The last 10 published decisions for the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases</description><lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:03:09 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>OSCN Feed Generator 1.0.56[www.oscn.net]</generator><language>en-us</language><docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs><webMaster>webmaster@oscn.net</webMaster><item><title>CITY OF NOWATA v. HAMILTON, 104138, 2008 OK CIV APP 52, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451619</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Plaintiff City of Nowata (City) appeals the trial court's  sua sponte  dismissal of its petition seeking declaratory relief in its controversy with Defendants Glenn P. Hamilton, his wife, Tawanda Hamilton, and their son, Glenn R. Hamilton (collectively, the Hamiltons), or in the alternative to quiet title to "Roberts Street," which runs across the north boundary of the Hamiltons' property. The Hamiltons appeal the same order in which the trial court summarily adjudicated their quiet title and/or inverse condemnation counterclaim against City in its favor. City also appeals a separate trial court order that denied its request for attorney fees and costs and awarded attorney fees and costs to the Hamiltons. We conclude the Hamiltons' appeal was untimely and dismiss it. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of City's claim and the order awarding attorney fees and costs to the Hamiltons, but affirm the trial court's order denying City's request for attorney fees and costs.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>PUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY v. STEENBOCK, 104265, 2008 OK CIV APP 53, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451620</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Employer, Public Supply Company, appeals the trial court's January 11, 2007, order awarding Employee, Tim Steenbock, more than eight (8) weeks of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, arguing the order is in violation of    85 O.S.2001 and Supp. 2006, &sect; 22   (3)(d). We review this legal issue  de novo , conclude no error occurred, and sustain the order under review.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>WEST v. JUSTICE, 101863, 2008 OK CIV APP 49, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451588</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Neomia West appeals an order of the District Court of Delaware County confirming a sheriff's sale of land to L.W. and Beulah Justice. Based on our review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we dismiss the appeal because West does not have standing.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>STATE ex rel. HOLLAND v. HERITAGE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., 103904, 2008 OK CIV APP 50, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451589</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Plaintiff/Appellant State of Oklahoma,  ex rel.  Kim Holland (Receiver), Insurance Commissioner   and Receiver for Heritage National Insurance Company (Heritage), appeals the   trial court's "Final Order Overruling Receiver's Combined Motion to Strike and   for Order Directing Section 1938 Representative's Rights." The plain language of      36 O.S.2001 &sect;1938    shows that Appellee Steven B. Silverstein, as Heritage's controlling shareholder at the time the delinquency proceedings began, is entitled to notice of the Receiver's applications for compensation, and is entitled to appear, testify, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence at the hearings on such applications. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that this language embraces Silverstein filing written objections before the hearings. We affirm the trial court's order refusing to strike Silverstein's written objections to &sect;1938 applications for approval of compensation.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>CITY OF MUSTANG v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, 103354, 2008 OK CIV APP 51, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451594</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Appellants Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 163 (FOP) and Dennis Craig appeal from the Trial Court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the City of Mustang (City). The issue on appeal is whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in granting the injunction prohibiting the appellants from pursuing arbitration. We find that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as limited to pursuing the arbitration procedures applicable to major disputes and contract disputes and affirm. ]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>SUPERCUTS v. BRIGGS, 104838, 2008 OK CIV APP 48, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451587</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Petitioners Supercuts and Combined Specialty Insurance Co. (individually, by name, or, collectively, Employer) seek review of the trial court's order granting benefits to Respondent Karla A. Briggs (Claimant). In this proceeding, Employer asserts the trial court erred (1) in refusing to join the insurer which processed and paid for medical treatment of Claimant's injury, and (2) in awarding benefits despite Claimant's untimely commencement of this action more than two years after the date of the accidental injury.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>JONES v. RANSOM, 103835, 2008 OK CIV APP 44, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451582</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Edward M. and Anna F. Ransom appeal from the Trial Court's denial of their Objection to Amended Petition for Condemnation. Based on our review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we affirm.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LIVSEY, 104144, 2008 OK CIV APP 45, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451583</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 In this probate proceeding, Billie Sue Coody, Carolyn Livsey, and Beatrice Livsey (Contestants), the natural children of Louis T. Livsey, deceased (Decedent), appeal the trial court's order denying their request for a share of the Decedent's estate as pretermitted heirs. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. TODD, 104387, 2008 OK CIV APP 46, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451584</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Plaintiff/Appellant, State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Department of Transportation (ODOT), seeks review of the trial court's order granting costs but denying attorney fees against Defendants, Terry Todd and Jennifer Todd (collectively Landowners), in ODOT's condemnation action. We affirm because the condemnation statutes do not authorize attorney fees in favor of ODOT.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item><item><title>NORMAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL v. HEAROLD, 104454, 2008 OK CIV APP 47, ___ P.3d ___</title><link>http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=451585</link><description><![CDATA[&para;1 Employer Norman Regional Hospital seeks review of an order of the three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court, which increased the trial court's award of temporary total disability compensation (TTD) to Claimant Terri L. Hearold from $378.22 per week to $528.00 per week. Because Claimant had received TTD compensation at an incorrect rate of $354.72, the panel's finding required an additional $9,980.93 TTD payment. Employer contends the rate of $528.00 per week is contrary to law. We find the panel applied an incorrect statutory method to calculate Claimant's average weekly wages. We thus vacate the panel's order and reinstate the trial court's TTD award.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:00:00 CST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>