STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel OBA v. CONRADY

¶0 Petitioner seeks writs of prohibition and mandamus to preclude enforcement and require modification of Respondent's discovery order. We assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition.

¶0 Melissa Evans died in a car accident on September 3, 2020, leaving a will that named her former spouse as the primary beneficiary and her descendants as contingent beneficiaries. Her son, Joshua Evans, initiated probate proceedings and, on November 17, 2020, obtained an order which admitted the will to probate, appointed Joshua as personal representative, and identified the heirs, devisees, and legatees. Joshua was later removed, and James Greer was appointed as successor personal representative. On January 5, 2024, Greer moved to vacate that portion of the 2020 order identifying heirs and beneficiaries. The motion alleged Joshua neglected to serve two individuals entitled to notice, including the decedent's former stepdaughter. The trial court granted the motion on March 25, 2024. Two months later the trial judge entered a new order modifying the list of heirs and beneficiaries, specifically finding Decedent's former stepdaughter was a beneficiary under the will. Joshua filed the present appeal on June 11, 2024, challenging both the court's authority to vacate the 2020 order and its subsequent determination of heir and beneficiary status. We retained the appeal but now dismiss it, concluding that Joshua's challenge to the vacatur order is untimely and that the interlocutory order identifying heirs, devisees, and legatees is not appealable.

¶0 This appeal concerns the Oklahoma Open Records Act and the public's access to metadata.

¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.