JOHNSON v. STATE ex. rel. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2018 OK CIV APP 4
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Gary M. Johnson was arrested for DUI in 2014; DPS initially revoked his license in March 2016.
- Controlling case law required setting aside that revocation; DPS issued an order setting it aside on April 26, 2016.
- Despite the set-aside, DPS sent a June 4, 2016 “Confirmation Notice and Reinstatement Requirements” showing a 180-day revocation; an MVR reflected the revocation.
- Johnson appealed to district court; DPS sent an unsigned letter acknowledging correction but sent no official set-aside order; the court held a hearing and set aside the June 4 revocation (July 20, 2016).
- Johnson sought attorney and expert witness fees under 12 O.S. §941(B); the trial court awarded $6,799.66 in attorney fees and $1,500 in expert fees ($8,299.66 total).
- DPS appealed, arguing (1) §941(B)’s “without reasonable basis” does not cover clerical errors, (2) the appeal was moot after correction, and (3) the fee amount lacked adequate support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPS acted "without reasonable basis" under 12 O.S. §941(B) by revoking license after controlling law required set-aside | Johnson: DPS had no reasonable basis; revocation (even by clerical error) justified fee award | DPS: §941(B) shouldn’t apply to clerical errors; action was not unreasonable | Court: DPS’s revocation after controlling law was not reasonable; §941(B) covers this conduct |
| Whether the appeal was moot after DPS corrected the record | Johnson: correction was unreliable (unsigned letter, no order); litigation was necessary to secure relief | DPS: voluntary correction moots the appeal; no need for hearing | Court: voluntary cessation does not automatically moot; here correction was insufficient and risk of recurrence justified hearing |
| Whether Johnson’s counsel unreasonably failed to contact DPS before appealing | Johnson: counsel tried to resolve but had difficulty communicating with DPS | DPS: counsel should have called and resolved without litigation | Court: given communication problems, filing the petition was reasonable |
| Whether the fee award amount was unsupported or an abuse of discretion | Johnson: requested fees and expert costs were reasonable; rates conceded reasonable by DPS | DPS: hours/amounts were excessive or unsupported | Court: DPS agreed rates were reasonable and presented no proof hours were excessive; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 926 P.2d 797 (1996) (trial court may find revocation without reasonable basis where agency lacked authority)
- Kluver v. Weatherford Hosp. Auth., 859 P.2d 1081 (1993) (appellate standard for reexamining trial court legal rulings)
- Humphries v. Lewis, 67 P.3d 333 (2003) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (2003) (reasonableness of attorney fee award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. City of Spencer, 237 P.3d 125 (2009) (voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a claim)
- State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Cedars Grp., L.L.C., 393 P.3d 1095 (2017) (entitlement to attorney fees is a legal question reviewed de novo)