QUALIFICATIONS
View John Dunn's
Professional Profile
Personal
Statement from John Dunn
John Dunn's Recent Victories
John Dunn's firm successfully appealed a District Court's decision to
take away his client's driver's license.
John Dunn and associate Stephanie Bush successfully convinced the Court
of Civil Appeals that the crime of "Actual Physical Control" requires
some intent to drive.
John Dunn and MJ Denman successfully convinced the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals that the State is required to establish the reliability
of the evidence it offers at preliminary hearing in order to bind the
Defendant over to district court.
John Dunn made law by successfully arguing that the Oklahoma Sex
Offender Registration was so punitive that it could not be applied
retroactively without violating the ex post facto clause of the
Oklahoma constitution. This opinion makes Oklahoma one of the
few states that has found their law to be punitive.
Mr. Dunn has additionally prepared a
"question and answer" page about this opinion.
Later John Dunn represented a client that a home owner's association was
trying to force to move because the statute concerning where a sex
offender could live changed while he was in prison. Mr. Dunn
successfully argued that the version of the law that applies is the
version in effect at the time of conviction. As a result, the
state of the law became clearer and John's client did not have to move.
John Dunn successfully represented a client that had been defaulted by
the District Court for failure to timely answer a Petition.
John Dunn successfully argued that his client had not received the
notice required by law and that as a result, they were entitled to be
heard. Mr. Dunn will now get the opportunity to represent his
client in litigation that they were previously denied.
John Dunn successfully represented a client that had an invalid judgment
entered against him in Nevada. When the Plaintiffs followed John's
client to Oklahoma to attempt to collect.
John Dunn was able to convince the
appellate court that the district court erred in denying his motion to
vacate the order domesticating the judgment because there was never
jurisdiction over the Defendant in his individual capacity.
John Dunn was called on to assist with a criminal defendant that the
state had failed to prosecute within the statutory period of time.
Then the it was learned that the state had suppressed evidence that they
had - also in violation of the law.
The District Court dismissed the
case for numerous constitutional rights violations. The state
appealed - twice. John beat them both times.
Following the United States Supreme Court Case of McGirt, John
Dunn sued in both state and federal court seeking to obtain a refund of
traffic fines and misdemeanor fines and fees. The cities
that were sued
asserted that they had jurisdiction over Indians in their
city limits based on the Curtis
Act, which
was an 1898 law that applied to certain municipalities in Indian
Territory. That law contained language that gave cities jurisdiction
over all inhabitants in their city limits. The municipalities,
including the City of Tulsa continued to issue traffic citations to
Indians under the belief that they had jurisdiction. John Dunn didn't
agree and took the City of Tulsa to Court. In 2023, the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals, decided the case of Hooper
v. City of Tulsa, 22-5034. In
that opinion, the Court found that the Curtis Act did not give
municipalities jurisdiction over Indians.
