Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Oklahoma Case Commentaries

Uniform Exclusion of Tort Bad‑Faith Claims for Service Warranties: America’s Car Mart v. Cantrell and Oklahoma’s Service Warranty Act

Uniform Exclusion of Tort Bad‑Faith Claims for Service Warranties: America’s Car Mart v. Cantrell and Oklahoma’s Service Warranty Act

Date: Oct 15, 2025
Uniform Exclusion of Tort Bad‑Faith Claims for Service Warranties: America’s Car Mart v. The Honorable Damon Cantrell (Okla. 2025) I. Introduction The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in America’s...
Business Court “Divisions” Are District Court Divisions: Judges Must Be Elected; Legislature Cannot Create New Trial Courts by Statute

Business Court “Divisions” Are District Court Divisions: Judges Must Be Elected; Legislature Cannot Create New Trial Courts by Statute

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Business Court “Divisions” Are District Court Divisions: Judges Must Be Elected; Legislature Cannot Create New Trial Courts by Statute I. Introduction In WHITE AND WADDELL v. STITT (2025 OK 68), the...
Barfell v. Freeman Health System: Oklahoma Courts Must Apply Ford’s “Relate To” Prong When Assessing Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Barfell v. Freeman Health System: Oklahoma Courts Must Apply Ford’s “Relate To” Prong When Assessing Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Date: Oct 1, 2025
Barfell v. Freeman Health System: Oklahoma Courts Must Apply Ford’s “Relate To” Prong When Assessing Specific Personal Jurisdiction Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma | Citation: 2025 OK 61 | Date:...
Survivors’ Act Resentencing Is “Postconviction Relief,” and District Courts Cannot Appoint OIDS in Noncapital Survivors’ Act Proceedings

Survivors’ Act Resentencing Is “Postconviction Relief,” and District Courts Cannot Appoint OIDS in Noncapital Survivors’ Act Proceedings

Date: Oct 1, 2025
Survivors’ Act Resentencing Is “Postconviction Relief,” and District Courts Cannot Appoint OIDS in Noncapital Survivors’ Act Proceedings Introduction In PYBAS v. THE HONORABLE JEFF CRITES, 2025 OK...
BJORKMAN v. NOBLE (2025 OK 62): Attorney Abandonment and No-Hearing Damages/Fee Awards as “Unavoidable Casualty or Misfortune” Requiring Vacation of Judgment

BJORKMAN v. NOBLE (2025 OK 62): Attorney Abandonment and No-Hearing Damages/Fee Awards as “Unavoidable Casualty or Misfortune” Requiring Vacation of Judgment

Date: Oct 1, 2025
Attorney Abandonment Plus No-Hearing, Unsupported Damages/Fee Awards Constitute “Unavoidable Casualty or Misfortune” Warranting Vacation of Judgment Case: BJORKMAN v. NOBLE, 2025 OK 62 (Supreme Court...
Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7

Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7 Case: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GIES, 2025 OK 59 (Okla. Sept. 23, 2025)...
Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed

Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed 1. Introduction In OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v....
Top-Two “Open Primary” Initiatives in Oklahoma: No Facial First Amendment Infirmity; Gist Adequate; Ballot-Title Review Deferred Until Post-Circulation

Top-Two “Open Primary” Initiatives in Oklahoma: No Facial First Amendment Infirmity; Gist Adequate; Ballot-Title Review Deferred Until Post-Circulation

Date: Sep 17, 2025
Top-Two “Open Primary” Initiatives in Oklahoma: No Facial First Amendment Infirmity; Gist Adequate; Ballot-Title Review Deferred Until Post-Circulation Case: IN RE INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 448, STATE...
OADA Exclusivity Preempts IIED Claims Arising from the Same Operative Facts as Employment Discrimination

OADA Exclusivity Preempts IIED Claims Arising from the Same Operative Facts as Employment Discrimination

Date: Sep 17, 2025
OADA Exclusivity Preempts IIED Claims Arising from the Same Operative Facts as Employment Discrimination Case: BAUGHMAN v. WORLD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION (2025 OK 57) | Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma...
Individual Legislator Standing in Oklahoma: No Injury-in-Fact from Executive Orders Not Affecting the Legislator’s Vote or Duties

Individual Legislator Standing in Oklahoma: No Injury-in-Fact from Executive Orders Not Affecting the Legislator’s Vote or Duties

Date: Sep 10, 2025
Individual Legislator Standing in Oklahoma: No Injury-in-Fact from Executive Orders Not Affecting the Legislator’s Vote or Duties I. Introduction FUGATE v. STITT (2025 OK 54) arose from Governor...
Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation: § 69(A)(4)(b) Imposes a Continuing Six-Month Diligence Requirement After a Timely Hearing Request

Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation: § 69(A)(4)(b) Imposes a Continuing Six-Month Diligence Requirement After a Timely Hearing Request

Date: Sep 10, 2025
Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation: § 69(A)(4)(b) Imposes a Continuing Six-Month Diligence Requirement After a Timely Hearing Request Case: OBI HOLDING COMPANY v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH AND THE WORKERS’...
Public Reprimand for Judicial Demeanor and Ex Parte Communications Despite Council’s Private-Reprimand Recommendation (2025 OK 51)

Public Reprimand for Judicial Demeanor and Ex Parte Communications Despite Council’s Private-Reprimand Recommendation (2025 OK 51)

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Public Reprimand for Judicial Demeanor and Ex Parte Communications Despite Council’s Private-Reprimand Recommendation (2025 OK 51) Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma Date: August 20, 2025 Matter: In...
Credible Evidence, Reciprocal Discipline, and the Path to Disbarment in Oklahoma: Commentary on State ex rel. OBA v. Conrady

Credible Evidence, Reciprocal Discipline, and the Path to Disbarment in Oklahoma: Commentary on State ex rel. OBA v. Conrady

Date: Jul 31, 2025
Credible Evidence, Reciprocal Discipline, and the Path to Disbarment in Oklahoma: Commentary on State ex rel. OBA v. Conrady I. Introduction The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel....
Limiting McGirt’s Reach: Oklahoma Supreme Court Holds Tribal Members on Fee Land Within Reservation Are Not “Living Within Indian Country” for State Income Tax Exemption

Limiting McGirt’s Reach: Oklahoma Supreme Court Holds Tribal Members on Fee Land Within Reservation Are Not “Living Within Indian Country” for State Income Tax Exemption

Date: Jul 2, 2025
Limiting McGirt’s Reach: Oklahoma Supreme Court Holds Tribal Members on Fee Land Within Reservation Are Not “Living Within Indian Country” for State Income Tax Exemption I. Introduction Stroble v....
Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Retroactive Clarification of Execution-Related Confidentiality Under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act

Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Retroactive Clarification of Execution-Related Confidentiality Under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Retroactive Clarification of Execution-Related Confidentiality Under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act 1. Introduction In Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of...

    Partnership-Interest Transfers Do Not Constitute “Transfers of Title” for Purposes of Oklahoma’s 5% Ad Valorem Valuation Cap

Partnership-Interest Transfers Do Not Constitute “Transfers of Title” for Purposes of Oklahoma’s 5% Ad Valorem Valuation Cap

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Partnership-Interest Transfers Do Not Constitute “Transfers of Title” Under Okla. Const. art. 10, § 8B Commentary on The Icon at Norman Apartments, LP v. Warr, 2025 OK 42 I. Introduction This...
Orientation, Not Curriculum: The Oklahoma Supreme Court Narrows HB 1775’s Reach and Limits the Use of Certified Questions

Orientation, Not Curriculum: The Oklahoma Supreme Court Narrows HB 1775’s Reach and Limits the Use of Certified Questions

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Orientation, Not Curriculum: The Oklahoma Supreme Court Narrows HB 1775’s Reach and Limits the Use of Certified Questions I. Introduction In Black Emergency Response Team v. Drummond, Walters, 2025...
Nameplate Rating Controls: Interpreting “Connected Load for Initial Full Operation” Under Oklahoma’s One‑Megawatt Exception

Nameplate Rating Controls: Interpreting “Connected Load for Initial Full Operation” Under Oklahoma’s One‑Megawatt Exception

Date: Jun 18, 2025
Nameplate Rating Controls: Interpreting “Connected Load for Initial Full Operation” Under Oklahoma’s One‑Megawatt Exception I. Introduction The decision in Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. v. Oklahoma...
Per‑Plaintiff Apportionment Required: Oklahoma Supreme Court Mandates Apportioned Offers of Judgment Under 12 O.S. § 1101.1(A)

Per‑Plaintiff Apportionment Required: Oklahoma Supreme Court Mandates Apportioned Offers of Judgment Under 12 O.S. § 1101.1(A)

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Per‑Plaintiff Apportionment Required: Oklahoma Supreme Court Mandates Apportioned Offers of Judgment Under 12 O.S. § 1101.1(A) Introduction In Lunn v. Continental Motors, Inc., 2025 OK 29, 568 P.3d...
Reciprocal Discipline and the Duty to Protect Minors’ Confidentiality: Unsealed Juvenile Pleadings and Extrajudicial Dissemination as Rule 8.4(d) Misconduct — State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Boyd, 2025 OK 30

Reciprocal Discipline and the Duty to Protect Minors’ Confidentiality: Unsealed Juvenile Pleadings and Extrajudicial Dissemination as Rule 8.4(d) Misconduct — State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Boyd, 2025 OK 30

Date: Apr 30, 2025
Reciprocal Discipline and the Duty to Protect Minors’ Confidentiality: Unsealed Juvenile Pleadings and Extrajudicial Dissemination as Rule 8.4(d) Misconduct — State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert