Oklahoma’s appellate courts have had a busy week, with a unanimous Oklahoma Supreme Court reigning in the attorney general’s intervention authority and the Court of Civil Appeals ruling on cases about tax refund filing deadlines and the removal of a highway exit near a Tulsa hotel.
Speaking of Tulsa, a new filing on behalf of April Wilkins lambasts one of her prior attorneys as “dishonest” and “grossly incompetent” for how a psychiatrist’s expert analysis was handled in her Survivors Act hearing last year.
You’ll find those updates and more below in this legal roundup.
After intervention overturned, Drummond refiles State Farm claims separately
Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a new lawsuit against State Farm this week one day after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled he could not intervene in a Broken Arrow family’s existing insurance bad faith case against the company. Drummond’s new suit was filed in Cleveland County District Court to “enforce Oklahoma’s consumer-protection and anti-racketeering laws to halt a systematic fraudulent scheme harming” homeowners, “obtain civil penalties” and “compel the disgorgement of illicit profits” from the company.
In his filing, Drummond alleges the insurance company orchestrated “a coordinated program to limit roof-related insurance payouts by denying or reducing valid hail and wind claims,” and he argued that State Farm has violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act with “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” violated Oklahoma’s RICO laws, engaged in a civil conspiracy and unjustly enriched themselves through their “denial enterprise.”
Drummond’s initial legal filings attempted to intervene in the civil case brought against State Farm by Billy and Lacy Hursh. Oklahoma County District Court Judge Amy Palumbo granted his intervention on behalf of state interests during a Dec. 30 hearing that saw State Farm attorney Lance Leffel argue that Drummond lacked authority to intervene in the private litigation, saying “it would be unfeasible and confusing to the jury.”
While Palumbo agreed with Drummond’s office and the Hursh’s attorneys — Reggie and Hannah Whitten and Blake Sonne — a unanimous Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with State Farm’s claim that the attorney general’s strategy procedurally inappropriate.
“It is a fundamental procedural rule in Oklahoma that an intervenor must take the case as they find it; they are not permitted ‘to enlarge the issues or compel an alteration of the proceedings, or to include matters not germane to the issues presented,'” Chief Justice Dustin Rowe wrote Tuesday. “The underlying litigation is a private contract dispute centered on a specific bad faith claim against State Farm for hail damage to a single property. The attorney general’s intervention transforms this narrow action into a broad, statewide proceeding. By merging numerous generalized claims with a single, concrete dispute in Oklahoma County, the nature of the litigation is fundamentally altered.”
Rowe was joined by Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn and Justices James Edmondson, Douglas Combs and Noma Gurich, as well as Special Justices Tim Downing and James Huber. Justice James Winchester wrote separately, and was joined by Justice Richard Darby, to offer more analysis on interventions. Justices M. John Kane IV and Travis Jett recused, leading to the court’s appointment of the two temporary special justices.
Rowe’s eight-page ruling was fairly explicit that the decision focused on procedure and not merit, with the chief justice going so far as to suggest that Drummond could “bring his claims in a separate, independent lawsuit, which avoids the restraints of Gettler on intervention.”
“Maintaining these as distinct proceedings ensures that the state’s broad interests are addressed in the correct forum while preserving the integrity of this private litigation,” Rowe wrote.
Drummond accepted the high court’s invitation, filing a fresh case against State Farm on Wednesday.
“This case is about more than individual claim disputes. The allegations describe a corporate scheme that threatens the integrity of Oklahoma’s insurance marketplace and undermines public confidence in an industry families rely on when disaster strikes. My office will continue fighting to ensure Oklahoma consumers receive the benefits they paid for and the fair treatment they deserve,” Drummond said in a press release. “It is unacceptable that Oklahomans are paying rising homeowners insurance premiums yet receiving less protection in return. Inflation and weather do not explain, let alone justify, the widening gap between what Oklahomans pay and what they receive. This new action will prevent State Farm from continuing to delay the matter with procedural posturing.”
April Wilkens files for new Survivors Act hearing, alleges former attorney ‘grossly incompetent’
Attorneys representing April Wilkens filed an amended application for post-conviction relief for her conviction in the 1998 murder of Terry Carlton, her boyfriend who was a member of a prominent Tulsa family known for their car dealerships. Wilkens’ new attorneys argue that her first application for post-conviction relief suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel, “attorney mendacity,” and ex parte communications between the judge and district attorney. Wilkens, who says she shot Carlton to end years of domestic abuse, is seeking a second hearing under the Oklahoma Survivors Act with her new counsel.
Attorneys Phoebe Kasdin and Garrand Beeney argued that Wilkens’ prior attorney, former district attorney candidate Colleen McCarty, “inexplicably and unethically evaded disclosure” of evidence during the first hearing, “concealed her machinations from Ms. Wilkens,” and was “grossly incompetent.”
The brief accuses McCarty of multiple ethics violations, as well as alleging she single-handedly bungled Wilkens’ hearing over the advise of co-counsel Abby Gore by not submitting Dr. Reagan Gill’s expert witness report — prepared for the hearing — into evidence .
“Even co-counsel encouraged disclosure, urging that withholding Dr. [Reagan] Gill’s report could have serious consequences for Ms. Wilkens’ case. Counsel disregarded the warning,” Kasdin wrote. “On Aug. 14, 2025, three weeks before Ms. Wilkens’ Survivors’ Act Hearing, counsel filed an updated witness list, which did not include Dr. Gill.”
In affidavits filed with the new 288-page brief, Gill and Gore outlined how Gill was prepared to submit her report for consideration and testify as a direct witness, but ultimately she only testified as a rebuttal witness to the state’s expert and was not asked for her report by McCarty until after the September 2025 hearing.
“But for counsel’s dishonesty and her related incompetent decisions, Dr. Gill would have presented expert testimony that the court identified as crucial to Ms. Wilkens’ case both before and after the hearing,” Kasdin wrote of McCarty. “Instead, as a result of counsel’s deficiencies, the court held that it was left with no choice but to deny Ms. Wilkens’ motion for resentencing because of the missing evidence Dr. Gill would have provided.”
A supplemental brief also alleges an ex parte text exchange between District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler and Judge David Guten. Wilkens’ attorneys said it was improper for Guten to send Kunzweiler a letter published in the Tulsa World written by Joseph Dennis, a juror from her trial.
“In addition, and although the letter was shared by the court without substantive comment, a fair conclusion from the very act of sharing the letter is that the court endorsed the view expressed in the material. The district attorney surely understood this to be the case, given that the court had already denied resentencing on the same view that the juror held.” Kasdin wrote. “Thus, the very act of considering the Tulsa World opinion piece during the pendency of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is material as it was (or at the very least should be) deemed to be an improper attempt to review and investigate facts outside the scope of petitioner’s application for resentencing. Moreover, sharing the letter and its conclusions with the district attorney opposing the motion while the motion was pending may reasonably support a conclusion that the court was improperly ‘commending’ or otherwise endorsing the jury’s verdict, outside of a ‘court order or opinion,’ notwithstanding the ongoing nature of the dispute.”
The filing offers new hope for supporters of Wilkens, whose story and that of other women who have sought Survivors Act relief was told by ProPublica in February. Records submitted alongside the new application detail several accounts of Carlton raping, beating and stalking Wilkens in the months leading up to the murder. Wilkens has argued Carlton’s family connections in the 1990s prevented her from seeking help from authorities, and several police reports show officers were generally aware of allegations of Carlton’s domestic abuse. He was arrested once, in February 1998, with gun at her home.
The filings also generated some rumblings in Tulsa’s political circles for its arrival only two days after the June primary election where McCarty lost her primary challenge to incumbent District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler. During the campaign, McCarty positioned herself as a criminal justice reformer, but she drew heavy criticism from Kunzweiler’s campaign for her alleged inexperience. News on 6 reported that McCarty declined to comment on the appeal, although she signed an affidavit included as Exhibit 3 in the filing.
“Though I understood the court to suggest that a continuance would be appropriate given the late disclosure of Dr. Gill, I did not ask for one because of the court’s schedule and because Ms. Wilkens had already waited more than a year for her hearing, arrangements had been made for Ms. Wilkens to attend, and the courtroom was expected to be full of spectators,” McCarty wrote in her affidavit. “I was not able to consult with Ms. Wilkens about my proposal to limit Dr. Gill’s testimony or a potential continuance to allow Dr. Gill to prepare a rebuttal report and then testify as a primary witness because of the timing.”
Also this week, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued a precedential decision involving another filer under the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, Erica Harrison. The court found that appeals of resentencing under the act must follow the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act.
Harrison was convicted of manslaughter in 2014 after she killed Calvin Anderson, and her Survivors Act petition was denied in 2025. The new ruling allows her appeal to move forward.
Court of Civil Appeals overturns Oklahoma Tax Commission refund decision
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed an Oklahoma Tax Commission decision, finding that the state’s three-year limitation on tax refunds “begins to run on the extended filing deadline when the taxpayer obtains a valid filing extension for a particular tax year.” The ruling clarifies that extending a tax filing deadline also slightly extends the timeframe for filing refund applications
The Oklahoma Tax Commission had argued the three-year deadline was centered on the date the taxes were due. When a couple — Rodney and Deborah Arnold of Choctaw County — challenged that rule while attempting to carry prior estimated tax “overpayments” surpassing $200,000 into subsequent tax years. An administrative law judge recommended their challenge be denied. After that, a three-judge panel of administrative law judges affirmed the first judge’s decision, causing the Arnolds to appeal in late 2025. Deborah Arnold died in March at age 72.
But Judge Thomas Prince, writing for a three-judge appellate panel, disagreed and found that an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling provided the extended deadline as the proper deadline.
“We find no reason that the Supreme Court’s holding in Raytheon should not be extended to individual taxpayers who receive a valid filing extension from the [Tax Commission],” Prince wrote. “Because the evidence in the record shows that the Arnolds received valid extensions to file both their 2016 and 2017 returns, we find the commission erred in denying the Arnolds’ claims for refunds. In applying Raytheon to individual taxpayers, we conclude that, where a taxpayer receives a valid filing extension, [Title 68, Section 2373]’s three-year limitation period is triggered on the taxpayer’s extended filing deadline rather than the initial due date.”
West Tulsa Budget Inn land dispute back to trial court
A lawsuit brought by owners of the Budget Inn in West Tulsa over road construction was remanded back to district court for a new trial after the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals found Shiv Sairam, LLC, could not recover for business losses in its condemnation action against the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
ODOT used eminent domain to acquire 0.15 acres of the company’s property and closed an exit near the Budget Inn for highway construction. The company sought to recover the value of the land in a condemnation action as well as business losses for the exit closure.
ODOT had argued the hotel should not have been able to introduce evidence about the closure of the nearby exit at trial because he could not legally recover for business losses related to the closure in a condemnation action, and a three-judge appellate panel agreed.
“The central issue in this appeal, however, is whether Sairam is entitled to recover in ODOT’s condemnation case for any damage to [its] property not taken caused by the closing of the Elwood exit even though none of [its] property was physically taken for that project. We conclude the answer to that question is no,” Judge Jane Wiseman wrote. “However, that does not mean that Sairam is without a potential remedy for the alleged damage resulting from the closure of the Elwood exit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ‘held that although a city may regulate the right of ingress and egress in the lawful exercise of police power, that such exercise, even if reasonable, may require compensation if it acts to absolutely deny ingress or egress to the complaining landowner.'”
Wiseman explained the proper action for Shiv Sairam LLC — registered to Chetan Patel — to recover its business losses is to pursue an inverse condemnation action.
“We conclude it was error to permit Sairam to recover damage to its business from the closing of the Elwood exit,” Wiseman wrote. “Sairam’s claim for damages arising from the closing of the Elwood exit properly belongs in a separate inverse condemnation action.”
$4 million Jarrin Jackson verdict upheld
A four-page opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals unanimously affirmed a $4 million judgement against former legislative candidate Jarrin Jackson by finding he failed to preserve his argument properly on appeal. Most grounds for appeal require a party to set a foundation for, or preserve, the arguments they would like to make on appeal during the lower court’s proceedings.
Jackson — who gained notoriety during his 2022 campaign for SD 2 by writing the word “Dominion” on a printer and shooting it with a rifle in reference to voting machines and the 2020 presidential election — was sued for libel by campaign consultant Fount Holland and his then-company, Campaign Advocacy Management Professionals, after Jackson circulated campaign materials targeting Holland.
Jackson implied his opponent in the race, now-Sen. Ally Seifried (R-Claremore), hired Holland despite a felony conviction. He said Holland “was charged for trying to steal an election” and that Holland was criminally implicated in the Epic Charter Schools scandal. Holland’s attorney argued there was “no admissible evidence” to support either claim and ultimately won a multi-million dollar verdict in the libel case.
On appeal, Jackson argued the trial court violated his due process rights by improperly exercising personal jurisdiction over him.
Judge E. Bay Mitchell III wrote the opinion finding Jackson’s prior attorney had waived his right to object to personal jurisdiction.
“As a result, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was waived, and therefore we decline to consider appellant’s point of error on appeal,” Mitchell wrote.
