Summary Judgment at Trial Court

Obtained summary judgment for third party defendant in a class action involving indemnification claims exceeding $100 million.

By |2024-04-16T09:52:59-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Summary Judgment at Trial Court

Successful Appellate Representation

Represented insurer in action before Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and obtained reversal of trial court with instruction for district court to enter judgment in favor of defendant on bad faith claims.

By |2024-04-16T09:55:41-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Successful Appellate Representation

Summary Judgment at Trial Court

In action representing employer, obtained summary judgment in favor of client/employer in claim involving sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII.

By |2024-04-16T09:56:36-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Summary Judgment at Trial Court

Obtained Summary Judgment for Employer

In action by Plaintiff alleging age discrimination and related employment claims obtained favorable trial court rulings.

By |2024-04-16T09:57:31-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Obtained Summary Judgment for Employer

Major Litigation Victory for Superior Pipeline Company

A producer behind one of Superior’s gas processing plants claimed entitlement to a percentage of Superior’s condensate proceeds even though the contract did not require it. Superior won in district court, the producer appealed, but Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals affirmed judgment for Superior. On June 2nd, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the producer’s Petition for Certiorari (Case No. 111,373). In addition, the court also awarded Superior 100% of its attorneys’ fees, just under $200,000.00.

By |2024-05-31T14:15:43-05:00June 20th, 2021|Comments Off on Major Litigation Victory for Superior Pipeline Company

Unanimous Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Power of Eminent Domain

GableGotwals secured a unanimous victory from the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding the necessity of takings under the power of eminent domain. The Firm’s client, a FERC interstate natural gas pipeline, brought a condemnation action to acquire additional easement rights, including access easements over existing roads because the existing agreements between the parties did not provide reliable access to the pipelines and facilities for erosion control and maintenance work. The landowner challenged the necessity of the taking, arguing that the preexisting easements preempted any later exercise of eminent domain and that the taking did not meet the legal standard of necessity for public use. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the landowner’s arguments and ruled in favor of the Firm’s client. In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld well settled law that the right of eminent domain cannot be contracted away, meaning that preexisting easements do not prevent later exercise of eminent domain. The Court also reiterated that condemning authorities, such as pipelines, have wide discretion in determining the location and routes of their easements. The Court concluded that the easement rights sought in the condemnation action were necessary for the public use.

By |2024-08-23T15:34:40-05:00May 31st, 2021|Comments Off on Unanimous Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Power of Eminent Domain
Go to Top