McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma

08/21/2026

A new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision became final today that is worth noting for anyone dealing with contract disputes.

In Sargent Aerospace & Defense, LLC v. The Nordam Group LLC, 2026 OK CIV APP 28, the Court reaffirmed a basic but important principle: courts enforce contracts as written and will not rewrite the parties’ bargain after the fact.

The case involved a contractual provision that expressly survived “any” cancellation, termination, or expiration of the agreement. One party argued that the other party’s prior breach prevented enforcement of that provision. The Court disagreed, holding that the survival language controlled despite the alleged prior breach.

The takeaway is straightforward: when sophisticated parties clearly agree that a contractual right survives termination, Oklahoma courts will enforce that language according to its terms.

The opinion is also useful on permanent injunctions, irreparable harm, and the importance of actually presenting evidence when opposing equitable relief.

The mandate issued today, August 20, 2026.

Sargent Aerospace & Defense, LLC v. The Nordam Group LLC, 2026 OK CIV APP 28.

08/15/2026

OKLAHOMA COURT CLARIFIES THE ENFORCEABILITY OF LIABILITY WAIVERS

A new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision provides some important guidance on liability waivers.

In Mayo v. Tulsa Tough, Inc., 2026 OK CIV APP 27, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Tulsa Tough after a cyclist was seriously injured during a race when a pedestrian repeatedly entered the course and caused a crash.

The evidence showed race officials had been warned about the pedestrian, knew he was creating a hazard, and had removed him from the course multiple times before the accident. Even with that evidence, the Court held that the liability waiver signed by the cyclist barred his negligence claim.

One of the more significant parts of the opinion is the Court’s rejection of the argument that a plaintiff can avoid an otherwise valid waiver simply by characterizing the conduct as “gross negligence” or “recklessness.” The Court explained that recklessness is not a separate cause of action and that punitive damages depend upon a viable underlying claim.

Oklahoma law still will not permit someone to contract away liability for truly willful injury or certain violations of law. But Mayo makes clear that allegations of gross negligence, recklessness, or punitive damages, without evidence rising to that much higher level, do not automatically defeat an otherwise enforceable waiver.

For businesses, nonprofits, sporting organizations, and others that use liability waivers, this is an important Oklahoma decision.

08/02/2026

New Oklahoma Stalking Decision Clarifies Online Speech

In Meeks v. State, 2026 OK CR 19, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a stalking conviction based on a YouTube video about the defendant’s former wife.

The Court clarified that speech about someone is not automatically conduct directed toward that person. Because the defendant did not send, tag, or otherwise direct the video to his former wife, the State failed to prove an essential element of stalking.

The decision does not protect threats or intentional harassment. It does reinforce that offensive online speech is not automatically criminal and that the State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

07/29/2026

Think Before You Talk on a Jail Phone

Many people don’t realize that most jail phone calls are recorded and can be used as evidence in court.

A few things to remember:
• Don’t discuss the facts of your case.
• Don’t ask family or friends to contact witnesses or handle evidence.
• Don’t assume a call is private because you’re talking to someone you trust.
• Prosecutors can obtain and use recorded calls in criminal cases.

The safest response? Exercise your right to remain silent and speak with your attorney.

A single phone call has changed the outcome of more than one case. Protect yourself by thinking before you speak.

07/23/2026

A Broad Release Does Not Always End the Case

A recent Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision entitled Hahn v David Stanley Dodge is an important reminder that broad language in a settlement release may not resolve every claim.

The case involved a buyer who traded in her Chevrolet Traverse while purchasing a Dodge Grand Caravan. After discovering the Caravan did not safely seat eight passengers as allegedly represented, she returned it and repeatedly requested the return of her Traverse.

The dealership relied on a “Mutual General Release” that broadly released claims related to the transaction. However, the release specifically identified only the Caravan and its VIN—not the Traverse or the buyer’s right to recover it.

The trial court dismissed the case, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The appellate court held that factual disputes remained regarding whether the release covered the trade-in and whether the buyer was misled about what she was signing.

The court did not hold that the release was automatically invalid. Instead, it held that its scope and enforceability could not be decided without resolving those factual disputes.

The takeaway: Releases should clearly identify every claim, asset, payment, obligation, and item of property being resolved. Broad boilerplate may not cure an important omission.

Individuals should read carefully before signing. Businesses should clearly state exactly what each party is receiving and surrendering.

Clear agreements help prevent future litigation.

07/20/2026

🚨 The U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Another Important Constitutional Case

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could significantly impact civil asset forfeiture and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines.

At issue is whether the government went too far by seizing an airplane after its owner was convicted of a misdemeanor involving the transportation of alcohol into a dry village in Alaska. The Supreme Court will decide how courts should determine when the forfeiture of property becomes an unconstitutional excessive fine.

Why does this matter?

The Court’s decision could affect cases involving the seizure of cars, cash, businesses, equipment, and other property across the country. It may establish clearer constitutional limits on when the government can permanently take someone’s property because it was connected to a crime.

We’ll be following this case closely because it has the potential to reshape an area of law that affects property rights, criminal law, and constitutional protections nationwide.

As the briefing is filed, oral arguments are held, and the Court issues its opinion, we’ll break down what happens and what it means in plain English. Stay tuned.

07/19/2026

McBride & McBride is proud to announce that attorney Chase McBride will be speaking at the upcoming Informational Forum regarding Oklahoma State Questions 846 and 844.

The forum will be held on August 6, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at the Thomas J. Harrison Pryor Public Library. Chase will discuss the legal framework and specific language of the two state questions appearing on the August ballot.

Chase McBride will be speaking at the upcoming Informational Forum regarding State Questions 846 and 844. His presentation will focus on the legal framework and specific language of the two state questions appearing on the August ballot.

07/17/2026

An Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision released yesterday, In the Matter of the Adoption of C.G. and P.P., addressed when children may be adopted without their biological parents’ consent.

The case involved two children who had been in a temporary guardianship since 2022. Their biological parents later moved to California for substance-abuse treatment, obtained employment, maintained some contact with the children, sent gifts, and offered financial support that the guardians declined.

After the guardians stopped contact, the parents filed to terminate the guardianship. The guardians then sought to adopt the children without consent, alleging abandonment, failure to support, and failure to maintain a substantial and positive relationship.

The Court affirmed the denial of the adoption, finding that the guardians had not proven any statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence.

The decision is important because it reinforces the high burden required to dispense with a biological parent’s consent and confirms that courts must closely examine the parent’s efforts, the custodian’s conduct, and the full context of the parent-child relationship before allowing a consentless adoption.

07/17/2026

We are pleased to announce that attorney Chase McBride has successfully completed a comprehensive course in DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing using the 2025 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and International Association of Chiefs of Police curriculum.

We are pleased to announce that attorney Chase McBride has successfully completed a comprehensive course in DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing using the 2025 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and International Association o

07/07/2026

High-Income Parents and Child Support in Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals recently issued an important child-support decision in Fancher v. McDowell.

The issue was how child support should be calculated when the parents’ combined income is higher than the top amount listed in Oklahoma’s child-support guideline chart.

The trial court had accepted the father’s offer to pay $2,250 per month. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed that decision, making clear that child support in high-income cases cannot simply be based on what the paying parent is willing to pay.

When the parents’ income exceeds the guideline cap, the guideline amount is only the starting point. The court must then determine an additional amount based on the evidence, including the children’s actual needs, the parents’ ability to pay, and the standard of living appropriate for the children under the circumstances.

This is especially important in high-income cases because the guideline chart does not automatically capture the full financial picture. Without that additional analysis, child support could be artificially limited even when the evidence shows the children’s needs and lifestyle justify more support.

The Court also emphasized that this rule applies in paternity cases, not just divorce cases. Children should not be treated differently simply because their parents were never married.

The takeaway is straightforward: in high-income child-support cases, the court has to do the math and look at the evidence. The number cannot just be what one parent offers or what sounds reasonable.