TIGGES v. ANDREWS
2017 OK 9
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In June 2014 Debbie Tigges sued multiple defendants after a pool filter exploded injuring her husband and son.
- Blue Haven Pools moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in 12 O.S. § 109; Hayward joined the motion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Blue Haven and Hayward; later the judgment for Hayward was set aside but Blue Haven’s judgment was maintained and certified for immediate appeal.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed summary judgment against Blue Haven except as to a failure-to-warn claim, and this Court denied certiorari; mandate issued.
- Petitioners sought disqualification of the trial judge (Judge Andrews) after partial reversal, relying on 20 O.S. § 95.10(B) and Rule 15; the trial judge and the county chief judge denied recusal.
- Petitioners then filed an original proceeding in the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to require reassignment; the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 95.10(B) gives a party the right to force reassignment of the trial judge after partial reversal on appeal | Tigges argued § 95.10(B) means a party can withhold consent and require a different judge on remand | The judiciary has plenary authority to manage assignments; § 95.10 does not grant unilateral party removal rights | Denied — § 95.10(B) does not authorize automatic reassignment; assignment decisions are judicial administrative functions |
| Whether mere reversal (or partial reversal) of a judge’s ruling in the appellate record is sufficient to justify disqualification | Tigges contended the partial reversal of summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim indicates the judge should be removed | Defendants argued reversal alone, without evidence of bias or other disqualifying conduct, is insufficient | Denied — reversal alone does not establish grounds for disqualification absent evidence of bias, impropriety, manifest disregard of law, etc. |
| Proper procedure to seek reassignment when appellate record contains evidence bearing on judge’s impartiality | Tigges relied on § 95.10(A) and Rule 15 filings after remand | Defendants maintained any charge of disqualifying conduct must be supported by evidence in the appellate record or pursued under Rule 15 before the trial court | Held — § 95.10(A) relief requires demonstrable evidence in the appellate record; otherwise Rule 15 procedure applies and must show disqualifying facts |
| Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its superintending power to order reassignment sua sponte | Tigges asked for reassignment based on partial appellate reversal | Defendants argued no record evidence of bias or misconduct justified extraordinary relief | Denied — Supreme Court will reassign only where appellate record shows judge was not impartial; no such showing here |
Key Cases Cited
- Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (2009 OK 93) (Court applied § 95.10(A) to order reassignment where record showed trial court abused its authority)
- Carrigan-St. Clair v. Wildwood Preserve Farms, Inc., 228 P.3d 1198 (2009 OK 89) (§ 95.10 is narrowly drawn; appellate record must supply evidence supporting disqualification)
- Casey v. Casey, 270 P.3d 109 (2011 OK 46) (reversal alone does not justify disqualification; need evidence of bias, impropriety, or similar grounds)