7 results for 'judge:"Hixon "'.
J. Hixon finds the district court improperly entered summary judgment in favor of the law firm in this attorney fee dispute. The partnered law firm sought declaratory judgment regarding the enforceability of a fee-splitting and referral agreement, bringing multiple contract and fraud-based allegations, and seeking damages for alleged nonpayment. Though the agreement and associated contracts do not comply with requirements of a particular rule of professional conduct, the rule may not be used as a defense. Summary judgment on cases not litigated by the attorney was properly entered. Reversed in part.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon , Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 120999, Categories: Attorney Fees, Contract
J. Hixon finds the workers' compensation court improperly denied the patient's request for a spinal cord stimulator as continued medical maintenance. The lower court awarded permanent partial disability and continued pain management to the patient, and the stimulator was recommended by his doctor and awarded at the time the patient reached maximum improvement. The lower court erroneously held he was required to file a motion to reopen and demonstrate a change of condition. Reversed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 120960, Categories: Health Care, Workers' Compensation
J. Hixon finds an $11,000 damages award to a driver and passenger in a collision case was adequate. The oilwell worker, driving in the scope of his employment, struck the injured parties' vehicle when stopped at a stop sign. Although the oilwell worker's behavior constitutes reckless driving, the injured parties fail to show this automatically warrants an instruction on punitive damages. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon , Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 120288, Categories: Vehicle, Damages, Negligence
J. Hixon finds the trial court properly dismissed the insurance commissioner and receiver's suit alleging the holdings company misled the insurer as to the bank insurer's financial condition, causing it to overvalue its stock when deciding whether to purchase it. The commissioner/receiver filed a negligent misrepresentation action which was later voluntarily dismissed and filed a second suit after the limitations. They may not rely on the original action and the one-year savings statute because it was not dismissed until after the second suit was filed. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon , Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 119910, Categories: Fraud, Insurance, Due Process
J. Hixon finds the trial court properly denied the grandparents��� petition for visitation rights. The grandparents are the parents of the child���s father, who is not in the child���s life. The mother���s new husband has been granted adoption rights. The grandparents did not meet their burden to demonstrate entitlement to an order overriding a fit parent���s rights and compelling visitation. The court did not misinterpret the statute requiring the grandparents to rebut the presumption that the mother acted in the child���s best interest by denying visitation. Potential harm to the child is not supported by evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 120249, Categories: Evidence, Family Law, Guardianship
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hixon finds the commission improperly determined that the gas purchaser and supplier were subject to day-to-day standalone contracts from the time the complaint was filed through its final order. The supplier filed its complaint with the commission asserting that fees and terms and conditions of a replacement contract were unjust and discriminatory. The supplier never accepted or executed the replacement contract and an interim arrangement was made between the companies pending the outcome of the underlying action. The commission has authority to adjust fees collecting during the period in which the complaint was pending in accordance with the final fee, and the supplier is not entitled to adjustment of fees paid before the complaint was filed. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 119361, Categories: Corporations, Energy, Contract
J. Hixon finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the mental health facility who refused admittance to the potential psychiatric patient. The potential patient, a truck driver, was having a PTSD episode at a truck stop. Medical examination found meth in his system and the mental health facility refused him admittance based on the lack of clarity as to whether or not the episode was precipitated by a reaction to drugs or was a genuine schizophrenic episode. The driver was released from care and returned to the truck stop where he hassled another driver, stole a truck and was shot dead when he attempted to stab the other driver���s wife. No patient-physician relationship existed between the driver and the mental health facility based upon a ���four minute��� phone conversation between the original examiner and the psychiatrist. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: May 18, 2023, Case #: 119331, Categories: Health Care, Medical Malpractice