Case notes from an Oklahoma trial lawyer.

Thomas & Goza v. Liberty Mutual explains when unanswered requests for admission may be withdrawn, why the litigation record matters, and why reversal did not decide insurance coverage.

A 2026 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision explains how policy language determines the order in which primary and excess liability insurance responds, and why a prevailing insurer could not recover statutory prejudgment interest in this dispute between carriers.

A 2026 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision explains why requests for prior incidents must be tied to the actual claims and defenses, proportionate to the case, and specific enough to separate useful evidence from a broad subject-matter search.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court's Burgess decision separates state emergency-era immunity from federal PREP Act protection and shows why medical negligence cases can turn on the source, scope, and causation language of an immunity statute.

A new Oklahoma accountability initiative for deaths in jail shows why these cases depend on preserved medical records, video, staffing evidence, timelines, and disciplined constitutional proof.

Why serious Oklahoma motorcycle wrecks require fast preservation of scene evidence, video, motorcycle and gear, roadway proof, medical causation, and a disciplined response to rider-blame defenses.

A recent fatal hit-and-run on I-35 in McClain County shows why Oklahoma hit-and-run and highway death cases often turn on the evidence that is not waiting at the scene.

Why serious semi-truck wrecks require immediate preservation of electronic data, driver files, maintenance records, dispatch communications, and carrier safety evidence.

A $2 million Oklahoma County jail death verdict shows what serious civil-rights cases require: records, depositions, medical proof, jail-policy work, and trial command.

What families should know about reported homicides at Allen Gamble Correctional Center, records that may matter, and civil-rights claims when officials ignore known danger.

How federal-agent cases can raise difficult questions about accountability, immunity, records, and the remedies available to families.

When a police officer kills a civilian, the criminal justice system addresses only part of the equation. This article examines why civil litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is essential to holding institutions accountable, through the lens of Browder v. City of Albuquerque and the case of Emily Gaines.

A 2026 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision holds that an insurer-retained engineering company acted as the insurer's representative during a claim inspection, barring tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy claims against it on the pleaded facts. The opinion also preserves the insurer's non-delegable duties and a dissent's warning about intentional conduct.

In Richards v. Foremost Insurance Co., the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that physical damage to a mobile home and losses tied to the absence of expected insurance protection were not the same injury for contribution under 12 O.S. § 832. The Court left the broader several-liability question undecided.

Bean v. St. Francis Hospital explains why an Oklahoma medical-negligence case must match qualified expert testimony to each physician, nursing, technical, and causation question the plaintiff must prove.

Betts v. Toyota explains why an Oklahoma crash did not make Oklahoma law control a products-liability statute-of-repose issue involving a Texas-owned, Texas-garaged vehicle.

Cactus Drilling v. Kirkland explains why pursuing an Oklahoma workers’ compensation claim and receiving benefits barred a later district-court action against the employer for the same work injury.

Williams v. McFeeters holds that the sixty-one days covered by Oklahoma’s 2020 COVID emergency orders cannot be counted against the applicable negligence limitations period.

A 2026 Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision shows why a prescription-drug warning claim may turn on dated proof of a causal association, the federal label-change process, and whether a different warning would have altered a physician’s treatment decision.

Mayo v. Tulsa Tough shows how an Oklahoma court examines a signed race waiver, a known course hazard, and the narrow line between ordinary negligence and conduct a contract cannot excuse.

State Farm v. Palumbo explains why an Oklahoma homeowners’ insurance dispute could not be transformed through intervention into a statewide enforcement case, while leaving the underlying hail-loss and bad-faith allegations undecided.

NonDoc Media v. University of Oklahoma explains why two reports from completed law-firm investigations remained protected by attorney-client privilege, and why the divided decision still demands careful attention to timing, waiver, segregability, and the limits of public-record access.