Both federal and state courts have been busy over the new year, deciding several high-profile cases in late 2025 or early 2026 across Oklahoma’s judicial systems.
At the federal level, a pair of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions out of Denver found a federal statute barring undocumented immigrants from owning firearms is constitutional and found that insurance coverage for the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma Self-Insured Group excludes claims related to sexual abuse.
On the state level, in Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals, an Osage County landowner lost his legal challenge to the Kaw Lake water agreement between the City of Enid and the Osage Nation. Meanwhile, a former City of Lawton employee lost her age discrimination appeal, several Oklahoma County residents suffered a setback in their quest for reimbursement for never-built swimming pools, and two separate car dealership fiascos were sent back to district courts for further proceedings.
At the state district court level, a Rogers County lawsuit challenging the legality of part of the Will Rogers Turnpike’s toll road was allowed to continue, while Richard Glossip has cited health issues in a bond request. Read about all of those cases in this legal roundup.
‘Screwed’ buyer’s fraud claim revived against David Stanley Dodge
An Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals panel has overturned the dismissal of a woman’s lawsuit against David Stanley Dodge, which she accused of fraud and a litany of legal violations after she tried to buy an eight-passenger vehicle from the dealership, only to walk away without the car she bought or the car she initially traded as part of the dubious deal.
Oklahoma County District Court Judge Anthony Bonner originally dismissed Shelly Hahn’s lawsuit against the Midwest City auto dealership because she signed a mutual general release during the debacle, but Judge Jane P. Wiseman ruled on appeal that “issues of fact remain as to whether the release covered the trade-in vehicle which is not specifically identified in the release.”
According to the appellate court’s Dec. 22 majority opinion, Hahn alleged that, in April 2022, she agreed to trade in her 2012 Traverse as part of the deal to buy a 2019 Dodge Caravan, which she claimed the salesman said “definitely possessed safe seating for eight, but because it had yet to be cleaned, the seating in the rear could not be opened.” When she realized the Caravan only had seven seats, Hahn claimed she “immediately contacted” the Midwest City dealership and asked “multiple times” that “they return her trade-in and take back the Caravan.” She said that “David Stanley ‘falsely informed [her] that her trade-in had been sold, even though it remained in [David Stanley’s] possession until Aug. 15, 2022.'”
“We conclude Hahn’s allegations and testimony regarding the trade-in were sufficient to support her claim of fraud in the inducement or mistake, at least as to the return of the (Chevrolet) Traverse,” Wiseman wrote. “There are material facts in dispute that preclude granting David Stanley judgment as a matter of law on the question of whether the release is valid and enforceable.”
Hahn alleged that Tony Reasner, the pre-owned inventory manager and buyer for David Stanley, misrepresented the terms of the mutual general release she had signed in an effort to reclaim her Traverse. She claimed another dealership employee “returned and told her David Stanley would not be providing a replacement vehicle nor returning her Traverse.”
“[The employee] told her, ‘You’re just screwed,'” according to Wiseman’s recitation of claims.
In response to Hahn’s lawsuit, David Stanley filed a motion to enforce the mutual general release and argued “that Hahn’s attempt to recover is in violation of the release and the matter should be dismissed with prejudice.” Bonner agreed, but Wiseman noted the release “does not specifically address the Traverse trade-in” since “neither the Traverse nor its VIN is mentioned or listed on the release.”
“There is a question of fact as to whether there was a ‘sale’ of the Caravan,” Wiseman wrote. “The documents regarding the Caravan originally signed by the parties were obviously ineffective as David Stanley’s employee testified there was ‘a title issue so we needed new documents signed’ concerning the purchase of the Caravan. And there is a question of fact regarding whether the Traverse was included within the purview of the release. Hahn asserts it was not. The undisputed testimony from Hahn was that she repeatedly asked for the return of the Traverse before she signed the release and even said she had her checkbook to repay David Stanley for the money it paid the lender for the remaining loan balance. Hahn’s undisputed testimony was that she asked for the return of the Traverse before she signed the release and that before she left David Stanley, she was told she was ‘screwed,’ and without either vehicle, she had to find a ride home from the dealership.”
While Court of Civil Appeals Judge John Fischer agreed with Wiseman, Judge Gregory Blackwell dissented.
“If Ms. Hahn had paused to read the full release, she would have realized (or at least had the opportunity to realize) that she was releasing any claim to her trade-in,” Blackwell wrote.
Blackwell said that Wiseman and Fischer’s majority opinion “excuses Ms. Hahn from her choice not to read the release” and that “the law provides no such shelter.” In a footnote, Blackwell outlined why the trade-in’s existing loan resulted in a “negative $200” value for the Traverse as part of the Caravan’s sale.
“The majority seems to misunderstand the value the parties placed on the trade-in at the time of the sale,” Blackwell wrote. “While I view this fact as irrelevant in determining the scope of the release, it does offer some explanation as to a question that seems to puzzle the majority — that is, why Ms. Hahn might ‘sign a document allowing the seller to accept the return of the Caravan and keep the buyer’s trade-in vehicle as well.'”
The case was remanded back to Bonner for further proceedings.
Deceased car dealer, bank accused of ‘floor plan financing’ scheme
In another Dec. 22 decision regarding a car dealership kerfuffle, Merit Auto Group and its primary owner, prominent businessman David Le Norman, saw their claims against IBC Bank revived on appeal. In the lawsuit, Le Norman and his companies accuse the late Randy Byford and his wife of a fraudulent floor plan financing scheme and argues “IBC’s actions/inactions in connection with the dealerships’ floor plan loans aided and abetted the Byfords’ fraud.”
Although Oklahoma County District Court Judge Natalie Mai ruled the dispute is “subject to the arbitration agreement” included in IBC Bank’s contracts with Le Norman and his companies, a three-judge Court of Civil Appeals panel disagreed, ruling “it was error to find Merit fell short in meeting its burden to show waiver of the right to arbitrate.”
“We conclude Merit satisfied its burden to show sufficient evidence of IBC’s waiver of its right to compel arbitration, and we must reverse the trial court’s order to the contrary,” Judge Jane P. Wiseman wrote in the appellate opinion, which was joined by Judges John Fischer and Gregory Blackwell.
In 2019, according to the appellate decision, Byford “reached out to David Le Norman and ‘solicited his investment as a capital partner to help grow’ his current dealership and two more dealerships.” Under their agreement, Byford and his wife — who ran dealerships in Duncan and Chickasha — became 25 percent owners of Byford-Le Norman Holding Company, while Le Norman Properties owned 75 percent of the new company.
“[The lawsuit] claims that soon thereafter, Byford ‘resisted Mr. Le Norman’s efforts to conduct inventory audits and otherwise administer this supplemental floor plan financing’ and ‘delayed repayment of the supplemental floor plan financing,'” Wiseman wrote in summary of the case’s claims. “When initially confronted by Le Norman, Byford denied any wrongdoing but said he would correct the issues. After not correcting the issues regarding the supplemental floor plan financing, when Le Norman confronted Byford again on May 9, 2020, Byford ‘admitted in writing to Mr. Le Norman that he had been defrauding the Merit-Le Norman parties.’ Shortly thereafter, Byford committed suicide.”
According to the opinion, Le Norman then “began an investigation into Byford’s operation of the auto group.”
“As stated in Merit’s appellate brief in chief, ‘Unbeknownst to Merit Holdings, Byford fraudulently obtained advances exceeding the value of the collateral and had been keeping the proceeds of inventory sold’ and ‘also obtained fraudulently induced advances securing financing with collateral that never existed,'” Wiseman wrote. “Merit alleged that ‘Merit Holdings became saddled with the debt of the outstanding notes obtained from IBC and other banks’ and ‘[i]n an effort to restructure the debt, IBC and Merit Holdings entered into negotiations resulting in a series of loan agreements to restructure the floor plan financing loan agreements.'”
In the second amended petition filed by Metit and Le Norman, the plaintiffs accused IBC Bank of misconduct following the death of Randy Byford, an avid sports memorabilia collector who served on the OSU Foundation’s Board of Governors and provided vehicles to the OSU Department of Athletics through its Wagon Wheel program.
“After discovering the initial fraud, IBC made fraudulent representations and concealed information from Merit and fraudulently and economically coerced Merit to enter agreements to cover the debts accrued by the Byfords,'” Merit and Le Norman alleged. “Those agreements contain certain clauses, including arbitration provisions, which Merit was fraudulently induced to execute.”
IBC Bank responded by filing a reply brief and an alternative motion to compel arbitration, which Mai granted. Merit and Le Norman appealed.
While reversing the trial court, Wiseman highlighted how IBC Bank chose to respond to the lawsuit.
“Our review of the record persuades us that IBC’s actions were inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. IBC filed its first motion to dismiss on the merits. And although it contemporaneously filed an alternative motion to compel arbitration, it sought to defer action on this alternative motion and specifically asked the trial court in both motions to address its motion to dismiss first, with surviving claims, if any, to be determined by arbitration,” Wiseman wrote. “IBC’s acquiescence and participation in continuing to litigate is inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. This evinces IBC’s desire to resolve this dispute through litigation rather than arbitration, relying on arbitration as a backup, should litigation prove unsuccessful.”
The ruling returns the lawsuit to Oklahoma County District Court.
Lawsuit over Will Rogers Turnpike continues
Rogers County Associate District Judge Sue Nigh denied the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s and Department of Transportation’s motions to dismiss a lawsuit a lawsuit over the Will Rogers Turnpike filed by attorneys Stratton Taylor and Kevin Easley Jr. on behalf of former Sen. Kevin Easley Sr. The suit alleges the state agencies violated a 2000 statute that Taylor and Easley argue requires part of the turnpike to be a free road.
Both agencies filed lengthy motions to dismiss the claim, but Nigh disagreed with their reasoning and has allowed the case to continue.
“The court finds, when taking all of the challenged pleading’s allegations together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, the plaintiff has sufficiently identified causes of action to which he may be entitled to relief,” Nigh wrote in her Dec. 16 order.
The order allows the case to continue at the district court. Both OTA and ODOTÂ filed answers Jan. 5, denying most of the allegations in the initial petition.
“This doesn’t mean we’ve won the case, but it does mean we can now require the Turnpike Authority and ODOT to produce documents which we believe will show they have known and even admitted for years that the turnpike by law should be a free road once the new Highway 20 interchange connected to the Will Rogers Turnpike,” Easley Jr. said in a press release. “We’ll now proceed to getting the documents and testimony from the Turnpike Authority and ODOT to prove our case.”
Taylor (D-Claremore) served in the Oklahoma State Senate from 1982 until 2006 when term limits prevented him from running again. He was the Senate’s president pro tempore from 1995 to 2003. Easley Sr. (D-Tulsa) also served in the Legislature from 1985 to 2004, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate. The two have now put themselves in the relatively unusual position of suing to enforce statutes they helped pass.
Suit challenging Enid, Osage Nation water agreement dismissed
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by landowner James Merrifield against the City of Enid alleging the city’s “forbearance agreement” with the Osage Nation for the Kaw Lake Water Project violated his property rights. The decision clarifies the legality of the Kaw Lake agreement.
In 2009, the City of Enid commissioned studies about its water needs, and by 2014, the city had concluded the best source to import more water would be Kaw Lake in Osage County. City leaders planned to construct a pipeline spanning the 70 miles between the lake and Enid. Afterward, the city sought an easement across the property of Merrifield, which he declined to grant. The city sought to exercise eminent domain to force access to the land and filed litigation accordingly.
In August 2020, the three “commissioners” appointed to decide the eminent domain valuation found that Merrifield would be paid $47,700 for the easement portion of his property. The City of Enid and Osage Nation later entered into a “forbearance agreement” where the city agreed to pay the nation $1 million for a promise not to initiate legal proceedings against the Kaw Lake Water Project.
Merrifield then filed an exception to the commissioners’ report, alleging the agreement between Enid and the Osage Nation “allowed the Osage Nation to take and use Merrifield’s property without any lawful right to do so.”
The appeals court disagreed.
“We reject Merrifield’s assertions and agree with Enid that the issue of the forbearance agreement — effectuated long after these proceedings were commenced — is a red herring to the fact the condemnation action was lawful,” Judge Robert Bell wrote. “The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates Enid entered into the agreement to avoid protracted litigation regarding legal claims the Osage Nation made to the water from the Arkansas River, which flows through Kaw Lake. As the forbearance agreement specifically sets forth, ‘Nothing in this forbearance agreement creates or otherwise conveys to the [Osage] Nation an ownership interest in the Kaw Lake project or any part thereof.'”
Glossip attorneys move for bond release owing to health problems
Richard Glossip has a new judge and a new court date in his ongoing effort to win release from custody. Glossip’s case saw several judges recuse themselves in July and August 2025 ahead of his new murder trial. The case has now been assigned to Judge Natalie Mai, with Glossip’s next hearing date is slated for Feb. 12.
Glossip appeared in court Dec. 29. His attorneys have argued that he should be released from jail on bond ahead of his new trial owning to a series of health problems, according to a story by Nolan Clay of The Oklahoman. Glossip’s attorneys argued that he suffers from high blood pressure and plaque buildup in his arteries, along with several masses in his lower body. Glossip was denied bond in July by Oklahoma County District Court Judge Heather Coyle.
Glossip was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1998 for the bludgeoning of OKC motel owner Barry Van Treese a year before. Glossip worked at the motel at the time of the murder and was accused of asking handyman Justin Sneed to kill Van Treese for money. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Glossip’s 1998 conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel, but Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death again at a 2004 retrial.
However, with Attorney General Gentner Drummond stating that prosecutors had failed to provide Glossip’s defense team with relevant information about the mental health background of Sneed, who pleaded guilty to committing the murder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that Glossip is entitled to a new trial. Drummond’s office has chosen to retry Glossip for the murder without seeking the death penalty.
10th Circuit upholds law banning gun possession by undocumented immigrants
In the published opinion United States v. Duque-Ramirez, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of a federal statute which bars “the knowing possession of a firearm by an ‘alien’ who is ‘illegally or unlawfully within the United States.'”
Jose Antonio Duque-Ramirez was born in Mexico in 1990 and entered the United States illegally when he was 7. In 2000, his family settled in Oklahoma City where he attended first through 11th grade. He married a U.S. citizen in 2016, and his three children are all citizens. He worked as a security guard in Oklahoma City.
On Oct. 17, 2023, Duque-Ramirez was pulled over by deputy sheriffs in Cleveland County, and during the traffic stop officers reported observing a fake tag, emergency lights, a spotlight, firearms, body armor, magazines, an expired Oklahoma County deputy badge, and a fraudulent commercial drivers license. The officers contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement and arrested Duque-Ramirez. In January 2024, he was charged with being an unlawful immigrant in possession of a firearm.
Duque-Ramirez argued the charges against him should be dismissed as unconstitutional for violating the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi. The 10th Circuit disagreed.
“Founding-era laws in at least six states disarmed ‘those who were presumed loyal to England unless they swore an oath of allegiance to one of the new states.’ The government derives from these sources a principle: Aliens ‘could be prevented from keeping and bearing arms’ based on ‘lack of allegiance to the sovereign,'” Judge Veronica Rossman wrote Dec. 16 for a three-judge panel. “We agree with the government. There is a tradition, beginning in England and enduring into the founding era, of disarming individuals presumed to be loyal to a foreign sovereign who had not sworn their allegiance via a method prescribed by the Legislature.”
The court’s ruling affirms Duque-Ramirez’s conviction and 30-month prison sentence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ website, Duque-Ramirez is being held in Massachusetts and is scheduled for release from prison Tuesday.
Purchasers of never-built pools may not recover funds from franchisor
Several Oklahomans have sued to recover losses from a pool franchisor after a franchisee failed to build the pools he sold, but they suffered a setback Dec. 30 when the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed several summary judgements in favor of Premier Franchise Management, LLC. The lawsuits allege misconduct by pool salesman Rafael Solano’s company, SOL Pools, LLC, which entered into a franchise agreement with Premier Franchise Management in 2018.
Under the name Premier Pools and Spas of Oklahoma City, Solano’s company sold several pools that were never completed, leading to lawsuits against his company. A few of Solano’s customers also filed suit against Premier Franchise Management, arguing the national company was liable for Solano’s actions. Premier Franchise Management argued Solano was not their employee or agent and stated his franchise agreement was terminated Jan. 20, 2023.
In four nearly identical decisions, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Premier Franchise Management and affirmed the summary judgements in their favor.
“Because plaintiffs failed to show Premier Pools, SOL Pools, or Solano was an agent of Premier Franchise, and the undisputed facts show Premier Franchise had no contract with or duty to plaintiffs, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Premier Franchise on plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Oklahoma Home Repair Fraud Act or on their negligence and fraud/misrepresentation claims,” Presiding Judge Jane P. Wiseman wrote Dec. 30.
Appeals court affirms dismissal of age discrimination suit against City of Lawton
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal of lawsuit alleging the City of Lawton violated part of the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act when the city terminated former employee Julie Magness in 2021.
Magness worked for the City of Lawton between 1993 and 2021. In 2017, she was demoted from financial services supervisor to a budgeting and accounting supervisor. On Nov. 8, 2021, Magness notified the city she would be taking “terminal leave,” a term used to describe the permitted use of all remaining paid leave prior to retirement, beginning Dec. 13. The city denied her request.
On Nov. 17, 2021, Magness was given notice of a job-performance hearing, and on Nov. 30 the city terminated her employment. After starting but abandoning an administrative appeal, Magness filed a wrongful termination suit against the city in August 2023 alleging she was terminated to avoid paying her for her accrued leave. After a hearing in August 2025, her suit was dismissed. Magness appealed.
Judge Tim Downing wrote the opinion affirming the dismissal, noting that “Magness violated several of city’s personnel policies” and had not exhausted her administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit.
10th Circuit affirms county liability policy does not cover sexual assault
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a writ of garnishment which would have required the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma’s Self-Insured Group to cover the cost of judgement against former Pontotoc County jailer Roger Flowers. In 2017, Flowers was convicted of two counts of second-degree rape for twice compelling a prisoner to enter the jail’s “control tower” so he could have sex with her.
After Flowers’ conviction, his victim sued him, Pontotoc County Sheriff John Christian and jail administrator Mike Sinnett for violating her civil rights. The trial court dismissed her claims against Christian and Sinnett, but she won a $75,000 judgment against Flowers at trial. She filed a writ of garnishment asking the court to require the county’s insurance to pay her judgement. ACCO, however, argued its insurance policy did not cover “sexual abuse.”
The 10th Circuit agreed with the insurer, finding the company was not liable for Flowers’ civil rights violations.
“No reasonable juror could conclude that, when he manipulated [his victim] into having sex, Flowers acted honestly or with lawfulness of purpose within his duties as a jailer,” Judge Gregory Phillips wrote Dec. 24. “So like the district court, we conclude that Flowers acted outside the scope of duties when he had sex with [his victim].”
