# Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer Protection Federation of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · April 23, 2013 · 343 P.3d 1266

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5177619

## Case

- **Full name:** ARBUCKLE SIMPSON AQUIFER PROTECTION FEDERATION OF OKLAHOMA, INC. v. The OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD, J.D. Strong, Emily Meazell, Ford Drummond, Linda Lambert, Tom Buchanan, Bon Drake, Ed Fite, Marilyn Feaver, Rudolf John Hermann, Jason Hitch, and Richard Sevenoaks
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 23, 2013
- **Citations:** 343 P.3d 1266; 2013 OK 29; 2013 Okla. LEXIS 36; 2013 WL 1738420
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Watt
- **Judges:** Colbert, Combs, Edmondson, Gurich, Kauger, Reif, Taylor, Watt
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5177619

## Opinion text

WATT, J.
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{1 I agree with the majority that the petitioner is entitled to an administrative hearing that is fair and impartial. Nevertheless, I depart from its conclusion that any appearance of such a proceeding can occur *1273 absent the disqualification of the hearing officer.
12 In cireumstances not unlike those presented here, we ordered the disqualification of the trial judge in Miller Dollarhide, P.C. v. Tal, 2007 OK 58 , €20, 163 P.3d 548 . In that cause, there were allegations that ex parte communications occurred with the trial judge through a third-party clerk. The Court determined that there were sufficient facts presented to cause doubt as to the trial court's impartiality. Consequently, we held that "error, if any, should be made in favor of disqualification" and that failure to disqualify "was an abuse of discretion."
13 In Tal, we stated that parties are entitled to have their causes heard by a fair and impartial judge, in a due process situation where all parties find themselves on a level playing field. Here, the "appearance" is that the communications at issue created favor of one party over the other. Therefore, I dissent to the portion of the opinion allowing the hearing officer to continue participation in the cause.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5177619. Public record. Not legal advice.