Mark Rogers, Terry O’rorke and William Wilson

Summary

The court held that the district court, rather than the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, had jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims concerned private rights and sought damages. It nevertheless held that the governing fuel-additive statute relieved sellers of any duty to disclose ethanol content before July 1, 2008, defeating the plaintiffs' contract, warranty, and consumer-protection claims. The order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.