September 23, 2026 | Brooks A. Richardson and Timothy M. Sowecke

Hull v. JP Energy Marketing, LLC et. al, No. 123,866 (Okla. Civ. App., Div. I, Sept. 10, 2026) (not for official publication)

A Love County landowner asked an Oklahoma district court to order a pipeline operator to clean up ground the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) had already declared fully remediated. The court declined to grant the requested mandatory preliminary injunction. On September 10, 2026, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

The court drew a line that operators in the oil and gas and midstream industries should study.

An OCC no-further-action letter and a final order closing a spill site do not bind a district court hearing a private nuisance claim. But the court may weigh them as evidence and may rely on them in holding that a plaintiff has not shown (by clear and convincing evidence) the likelihood of success needed to justify a mandatory cleanup injunction.

GableGotwals represented defendants/appellees Blueknight Energy Partners, LP and Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC who were successor owners of the pipeline where the leak originated.

What Happened?
In January 2015, a JP Energy Marketing (JPE) pipeline released roughly 800 barrels of crude onto industrial-use property in Love County. JPE remediated the area impacted by the release under the supervision of the OCC and EPA. On January 19, 2017, the OCC issued a no-further-action letter concluding that the site “can be closed with No Further Action Required.”

Three months later the landowners sued JPE and Blueknight — the latter as a successor owner under 50 O.S. § 5 — for nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation was joined later. The petition demanded a jury, substantial damages, and a complete cleanup of the surface, the subsurface, and the groundwater.

In 2019, the plaintiffs moved for an abatement and cleanup order: a mandatory injunction compelling remediation before trial. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. A division of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed in April 2023 and remanded for a hearing.

Two things happened while that appeal was pending. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the polluted condition of the property, holding that reasonable minds could differ and that the question belonged to a jury. And the OCC entered a final order in 2023, finding the spill had been “fully remediated” in accordance with all applicable cleanup standards, laws, rules, and regulations. The plaintiffs neither excepted to that order nor sought review of it.

The evidentiary hearing came in July 2024. The landowners offered analytical testing, photographs, and expert testimony that pollution remained. The defense offered expert testimony that hydrocarbon levels were declining through natural attenuation and bioremediation, that the residual oil posed no risk to human or environmental health, and that the cleanup met OCC and industry standards. The district court denied the injunction in a short journal entry: the plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success by clear and convincing evidence, and the Commission’s finding that the site was fully remediated “bears favorably on this issue in favor of Defendants.” Plaintiffs appealed.

What the Court of Civil Appeals Held
OCC closure determinations do not bind a district court. Private nuisance abatement claims are private-rights disputes, and those fall exclusively within the district courts’ jurisdiction. OCC’s jurisdiction, by contrast, is constitutionally and statutorily confined to the resolution of public rights through regulatory enforcement. Neither the NFA letter nor the final order controlled the outcome below.

OCC closure determinations are still evidence. Reasonable minds may differ, the court wrote, over whether the OCC’s determination of full remediation cuts against a claim that the property remains polluted. The district court could properly weigh the NFA letter and the final order in deciding that the plaintiffs had not carried their clear-and-convincing burden on likelihood of success.

Conflicting expert proof defeats a pre-trial mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunctions draw heightened scrutiny. Where the OCC record, the experts, and the parties’ documents point in opposite directions, whether the property is still “polluted” under Oklahoma law is a determinative fact for the jury, not a basis for extraordinary relief before trial.

Why it Matters
Engaging with the OCC pays evidentiary dividends. Hull does not make a closure determination preclusive of later nuisance, trespass, or negligence claims. It does confirm that a well-built administrative record — agency oversight, technical review, risk-based assessment and corrective action, and a final determination that remediation is complete — can be placed before a judge and a jury as persuasive proof. An operator who forgoes the regulatory process forfeits that proof.

Unchallenged agency orders arrive in court unimpeached. The Hull plaintiffs let the 2023 final order become final without exception or review. It then came into the district court with nothing said against it. Parties on both sides of these civil disputes should treat the administrative record as litigation evidence from the day it is created.

The relief requested shapes the analysis. A claim for money is a different animal from a demand that a court order a cleanup. The second asks a judge to weigh the public interest and to displace an agency’s remediation judgment. Hull shows that the clear and convincing standard, applied with heightened scrutiny, is a real obstacle to that request.

Contested pollution stays with the jury. Competing expert opinions about residual hydrocarbons will rarely be resolved on the papers or at a pre-trial hearing; a point that cuts against pre-trial abatement but also keeps the merits alive for trial.

The Larger Question the Opinion Leaves Open
Spills and releases can occur during oilfield activities the OCC expressly permits. The Legislature gave the OCC “exclusive jurisdiction, power and authority” over the handling and disposition of saltwater, brines, and other deleterious substances; spills associated with oil and gas facilities; and the “construction, operation, maintenance, site remediation, closure and abandonment” of those facilities. 52 O.S. § 139(A), (B)(1)(i), (j), (B)(2).

Most of the time, no conflict arises. The operator cleans up the release under OCC supervision and pays the affected owner surface damages. And when a landowner sues for more, the traditional answer has been straightforward: district courts decide private disputes, the Commission decides public ones. Exclusive jurisdiction over remediation does not bar a private suit for damages.

The line blurs when a plaintiff asks for a cleanup injunction in addition to a check. A mandatory abatement injunction requires the court to weigh the public’s interest in the remediation it is being asked to order. A public nuisance claim rests on injury to the community. In both, the harm alleged and the remedy sought are public rights — substantively and formally the same public rights that ground the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Hull presented that problem squarely. The OCC had found the spill fully remediated and required nothing further of the operator. The plaintiffs asked the district court to order a far larger and more extensive remediation project, before any trial on the merits. Had the court granted that relief, it would have reversed or interfered with the OCC’s final order in substance if not in name. The court denied the motion, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, so the collision was avoided rather than resolved.

The question survives for trial: may a jury find that further remediation is required when the agency vested with exclusive jurisdiction over oilfield spills and site remediation has found otherwise? Hull’s answer appears to be yes. The OCC’s order is evidence, not a limit on the court’s power.

That answer may have some appeal as a matter of balancing public policy. It gives both sides an evidentiary tool and keeps the courthouse open to landowners. But it also means that the OCC’s “exclusive jurisdiction” over the remediation of oilfield releases is not truly exclusive, and that its orders may be second-guessed by judges and juries in private civil litigation. If the OCC found a spill required more remediation, but a judge or jury disagreed and held that remediation was complete, would the result be the same?

The better balance, in our view, would respect both the Commission’s constitutionally protected role over public rights and the private remedies available to landowners. In that view, district courts would keep full jurisdiction over damages arising from a release but may not circumvent the Commission’s jurisdiction through mandatory cleanup injunctions or determinations of public nuisance arising from oilfield activities governed exclusively by the OCC. One forum should decide how much cleanup Oklahoma law requires. Another should decide what the release cost the landowner.

A note on the Opinion’s Status
Hull is not for official publication. It carries no precedential weight, and counsel should consult Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.200 before citing it. Its value for now is predictive: it shows how one division of the Court of Civil Appeals reads the interaction between OCC closure determinations and private abatement claims, and it frames an issue that is likely to return.

For assistance with OCC and environmental matters, please contact any member of the Environmental and Natural Resources Team.

Brooks A. Richardson	Timothy M. Sowecke

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

September 15, 2026 | Trent Shores, Managing Shareholder of GableGotwals’ Tulsa office and Co-chair of the Firm’s Native American Law practice, testified today before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee at a hearing titled “Missing and Murdered Indigenous People: Strengthening Public Safety in Tribal Communities.”

The hearing comes as Congress examines why Native Americans face disproportionately high rates of violent crime, and what it will take to close the gaps in coordination among tribal, federal, state, and local law enforcement that have long hampered the response to missing and murdered Indigenous people (MMIP) in Indian Country.

Trent brings a rare vantage point to the issue. As U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma from 2017 to 2021, he chaired the Department of Justice’s Native American Issues Subcommittee and built the national initiative the federal government now uses to confront the MMIP crisis. Nearly a decade ago, he testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in support of Savanna’s Act and to draw the Senate’s attention to MMIP. Today he returned to the topic to urge Congress to support tribal law enforcement and victims services in their efforts to combat this public safety tragedy. Trent specifically championed the efforts of the Cherokee Nation Marshals Service and Choctaw Nation Domestic Violence Review Docket to proactively reduce violent crime and support victims.

“When any person goes missing, every hour matters and every family deserves answers and action,” Trent said. “Through my work at GableGotwals, I have the privilege of standing alongside tribal nations as they protect their citizens and strengthen their justice systems. I was honored to bring that perspective before Congress and to advocate for practical solutions that empower tribal law enforcement and help return victims to their families.”

Trent spent nearly 18 years at the Department of Justice before joining GableGotwals. As the chief federal law enforcement officer for Northern Oklahoma, he oversaw all federal criminal prosecutions and civil litigation across 11 counties, home to more than one million people and 13 federally recognized tribes. His work on Native American policy, violent crime, the opioid epidemic, and economic espionage has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Real Clear Politics, and the Associated Press. He is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

About GableGotwals
GableGotwals attorneys have represented Native American tribes, their leaders, vendors, and commercial organizations in federal, state, and tribal courts and before administrative agencies, and have argued on behalf of Indian rights before the United States Supreme Court. The Firm’s Native American Practice is ranked Band 1 by Chambers & Partners, which describes the team as a “well-established Oklahoma firm with expertise in all areas of legal disputes, representing Indian tribes, vendors, their leaders and organizations in federal, state and tribal courts.” GableGotwals is also named a “Firm to Watch” in Native American Law by Legal 500.

September 9, 2026 | GableGotwals is pleased to announce that Joel-lyn A. McCormick has joined the Firm as a Shareholder in its litigation practice following a distinguished career in public service, including 17 years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

During her tenure as a federal prosecutor, Joel-lyn served in leadership roles including Deputy Criminal Chief, Senior Litigation Counsel, and lead attorney for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force. Joel-lyn handled complex federal investigations, jury trials, and appellate matters involving white-collar crime, transnational organized crime, environmental enforcement, and national security.

Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Joel-lyn served with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office as Director of the Multi-County Grand Jury Unit. Her work has earned numerous honors, including two FBI Director’s Awards and recognition as the Northern District of Oklahoma Attorney of the Year.

“For clients under government scrutiny or working to get ahead of it, there’s no substitute for having counsel who knows exactly what the government is weighing before it acts,” said Trent Shores, Managing Shareholder of GableGotwals’ Tulsa office and former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma. “Joel-lyn spent 17 years deciding when and how the government moved. Her vantage point is rare, and her joining GableGotwals makes our entire team more formidable.”

“I knew my next chapter needed to be somewhere that matched both the excellence I have always demanded of myself and the values that have guided my career,” said Joel-lyn. “GableGotwals stood out to me because of its exceptional lawyers, its reputation for integrity, and its deep commitment to clients and the community.”

Joel-lyn joins a government relations and litigation practice with extensive federal experience. The team includes two former Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed United States Attorneys, Robert McCampbell and Trent Shores; along with Hillary Stuart, former Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Washington; Rick Cella, former federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Oklahoma and former Senior Litigation Counsel at FINRA; David Herber, former Deputy General Counsel in the Executive Office of Governor J. Kevin Stitt; and Chris Thrutchley, former assistant attorney general and civil rights enforcement chief.

A graduate of The University of Tulsa College of Law, Joel-lyn brings to GableGotwals more than two decades of courtroom, investigative, and leadership experience, along with a deep commitment to strong advocacy, mentorship, and service.

About GableGotwals
GableGotwals® is a full-service law firm with more than 100 attorneys and 70 other business professionals in Oklahoma and Texas. We represent a diversified client base across the nation, and our connections and reach are global. Fortune 500 corporations, privately owned companies, entrepreneurs, foundations, and individuals entrust us every day with the stewardship and strategic management of their legal challenges.