McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma

McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma We are a full service law firm working to protect businesses, individuals and the property they own. We are premier lawyers with the experience needed.

We are not rubber stamp lawyers. We evaluate and handle each case to specifically tailor our representation to our clients' needs. As a result, we have been trusted by our clients in many different areas of the law all over the State of Oklahoma. We have successfully helped clients with their needs in both state, federal and appellate courts ranging from small claims and protective orders all the

way to multi-million-dollar lawsuits and first-degree murder. We often handle high profile cases and are regularly published on issues of law. It's safe to say we have made a name for ourselves.

05/29/2026

Oklahoma Supreme Court Invalidates Tulsa’s Municipal-Tribal Settlement Agreement

The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an important decision in State ex rel. Stitt v. City of Tulsa, 2026 OK 39, involving Tulsa’s settlement agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

The agreement arose out of federal litigation over whether the City of Tulsa could exercise municipal criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants for conduct occurring within the Muscogee reservation. As part of the settlement, Tulsa agreed that it would not exercise criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendants on the Nation’s reservation. The agreement also required Tulsa to dismiss pending municipal prosecutions against Indian defendants and refrain from filing future municipal prosecutions against Indian defendants for conduct occurring within the reservation.

Tulsa argued that the settlement agreement was simply an extension or reaffirmation of an existing cross-deputization agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The Oklahoma Supreme Court disagreed. The Court found that the settlement created new and independent obligations, including a substantial change to Tulsa’s exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The Court held that the settlement was an intergovernmental cooperative agreement between a political subdivision and a tribal government. Under 74 O.S. § 1221(D)(1), that type of agreement requires approval from both the Governor and the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations before it becomes effective.

Because those approvals were not obtained, the Court held the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law.

This decision is significant for municipalities, tribal governments, and public officials across eastern Oklahoma. It reinforces that cities may work cooperatively with tribal governments, but agreements involving law enforcement, prosecution, public safety, or jurisdiction must comply with Oklahoma’s statutory approval process before implementation.

05/22/2026

🚨 Breaking Legal News: Oklahoma Court Of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin To Retire

Presiding Judge Gary L. Lumpkin has announced his retirement from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, effective January 1, 2027. Judge Lumpkin has served on the Court since 1989 after being appointed by Governor Henry Bellmon.

This is a major development because the Court of Criminal Appeals is Oklahoma’s highest court for criminal cases. It has the final say in state criminal appeals, including convictions, sentences, constitutional issues, and death penalty cases.

The next judge will not be chosen in a regular election. Applicants will go through Oklahoma’s Judicial Nominating Commission process. The Commission reviews applicants and sends three names to the Governor, who then appoints one of them.

This appointment will help shape Oklahoma criminal law for years to come.

05/14/2026

What Are Your Second Amendment Rights After a Felony Conviction?

Another major Second Amendment decision was just issued by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Riddle. The Court reaffirmed that the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), remains constitutional even after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Bruen and Rahimi regarding Second Amendment Rights.

To understand why this matters, you have to start with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court dramatically changed how courts analyze firearm laws. Instead of allowing courts to uphold gun restrictions based on public policy or “government interests,” the Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America.

That decision opened the door to challenges against numerous federal firearm laws, including the federal law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing fi****ms.

Since Bruen, defendants across the country have argued that there is no historical tradition supporting lifetime firearm bans for all felons, particularly nonviolent offenders. Some courts, including the Third Circuit in Range v. Attorney General, showed a willingness to reconsider portions of the law.

The Tenth Circuit, however, has consistently rejected those arguments.

In Riddle, the defendant argued that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him because his prior convictions were nonviolent. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and held it remains bound by prior precedent upholding the law. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that historical tradition supports disarming dangerous individuals.

The practical takeaway: in Oklahoma and throughout the Tenth Circuit, federal courts continue to uphold the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute despite ongoing Second Amendment litigation nationwide.

This area of law continues to evolve rapidly, but for now, the Tenth Circuit has made its position very clear.

05/12/2026

What is a “Section 1983” lawsuit?

A recent Tenth Circuit case, VanHorn v. Salvation Army, provides a good example of how these federal civil-rights cases work, and their limits.

A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (commonly called a “1983 action”) is a federal lawsuit that allows a person to sue when someone acting “under color of state law” violates their constitutional rights. These cases are often filed against police officers, jail officials, municipalities, school districts, or other government actors for alleged violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution.

Examples can include allegations involving:
- unlawful arrests,
- excessive force,
- violations of free speech,
- due process violations,
- unlawful searches and seizures, or
- deliberate indifference by government entities.

But one critical requirement is this: the defendant generally must be a government actor or acting jointly with the government.

In VanHorn, the plaintiff attempted to sue private parties along with law enforcement and government officials after a dispute at a Salvation Army store resulted in criminal charges. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the claims and reiterated an important rule:

Simply calling the police or providing information to officers does NOT automatically transform a private citizen or business into a government actor subject to liability under § 1983.

The Court explained that to establish liability against private parties, a plaintiff must plausibly show joint action or a shared unconstitutional objective with the government — not just speculation or conclusory allegations.

The decision also reaffirmed that judges and prosecutors generally receive broad immunity protections for actions taken within their official duties.

Federal civil-rights litigation is one of the most important areas of constitutional law, but these cases are highly technical and require specific factual allegations to proceed.

05/09/2026

Important new Oklahoma custody opinion from Duggan v. Duggan regarding equal parenting time in Oklahoma under 43 O.S. § 110.1.

In Duggan, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed a custody modification order because the trial court reduced the father’s parenting visitation time without making the findings specifically required by Oklahoma law.

The Court held that merely determining a different schedule is in the child’s “best interest” is not enough. When substantially equal access is requested under § 110.1, the trial court must make specific findings explaining why equal parenting time would be detrimental to the child.

The specially concurring opinion is significant because it explains that concerns about parental conflict, communication problems, or even inappropriate behavior are not enough to reduce visitation alone. The trial court must identify evidence showing how the conduct actually harms or adversely affects the child in order to overcome the equal-access presumption contained in § 110.1.

This is an important opinion for Oklahoma custody litigation involving requests for equal parenting time.

05/01/2026

⚖️ The Due Process Protection Act of 2026 goes into effect November 1, 2026!!

Governor Kevin Stitt just signed HB 3742, and it’s going to change how criminal cases are handled across Oklahoma.

This is one of the largest changes in criminal procedure statutes in recent Oklahoma history

Here’s the simple breakdown:
🔴 OLD LAW (Before Nov. 1, 2026)

• Discovery often completed as little as 10 days before trial
• Prosecutors mainly disclosed what they intended to use at trial
• Evidence could come in late in the process
• Preliminary hearings were often limited in scope
• Enforcement for late disclosure was inconsistent

🟢 NEW LAW (After Nov. 1, 2026)

• Discovery must be completed at least 30 days before trial
• Prosecutors must disclose much broader categories of evidence
• All favorable (exculpatory) evidence must be turned over
• Disclosure obligation is ongoing throughout the case
• Applies to law enforcement and investigative agencies
• Preliminary hearings become more meaningful and evidence-driven
• Courts have clearer authority to exclude evidence or sanction violations

⚖️ What that actually means:

Less surprise. More transparency. Earlier case evaluation.

This is a pretty big shift away from how things have traditionally worked.

04/29/2026

When Are Miranda Warnings Required? Oklahoma Court Clarifies

Most people have heard the phrase: “You have the right to remain silent…” but what actually triggers those rights?

Miranda warnings are required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation, meaning they are both in custody (under arrest or restrained to a degree similar to arrest) and being questioned by law enforcement.

If those conditions are met, officers must advise a person of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. If not, statements can be excluded from evidence.

In the recent case State v. Cody Owen Russell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed where that line is drawn.

During the ex*****on of a search warrant, Mr. Russell was asked to return home from work, stood outside while officers searched his house, and answered questions about items and devices, all without receiving Miranda warnings. The trial court suppressed his statements, finding he was effectively in custody because he did not feel free to leave.

The appellate court reversed.

The Court explained that feeling like you are not free to leave is not enough. The proper legal standard is whether a reasonable person would view the situation as the equivalent of a formal arrest. Temporary detentions, even those where a person is not free to walk away, do not automatically trigger Miranda protections.

Key takeaway: Miranda applies only when restraint rises to the level of an arrest. The test is objective, not based on a person’s subjective belief.

This decision reinforces a critical distinction in criminal law between investigative detention and custodial interrogation, and why that distinction matters.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEApril 11, 2026Challenge to Remove Candidate from Mayes County Commissioner Ballot Based on Eligibil...
04/11/2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 11, 2026

Challenge to Remove Candidate from Mayes County Commissioner Ballot Based on Eligibility

📍Pryor, Oklahoma — Chase McBride filed a formal notice of representation in the challenge seeking to disqualify Matthew Eldon Pritchett from appearing on the ballot for Mayes County Commissioner, District 3, based on violations of Oklahoma law governing candidate eligibility.

The firm represents Randy Pierce, the sitting Mayes County Commissioner for District 3, in the proceeding before the Mayes County Election Board. A hearing on the challenge has been set for April 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

The challenge is based on 26 O.S. § 5-105a, which prohibits any person convicted of a felony from seeking or holding public office until fifteen (15) years have elapsed following completion of the sentence.

The filing identifies two felony cases in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma: Case No. CF-2006-8 and Case No. CF-2006-19. In both cases, Mr. Pritchett entered guilty pleas on July 11, 2007, to felony offenses involving obtaining merchandise by bogus check, and received five (5) year suspended sentences lasting into 2012.

Because Oklahoma law requires both completion of the sentence and the passage of fifteen (15) years thereafter, the filing asserts that Mr. Pritchett remains statutorily disqualified from candidacy and is not eligible to appear on the ballot.

The filing further alleges that Mr. Pritchett made material misrepresentations in his sworn Declaration of Candidacy by indicating that he had not been convicted of a felony, despite documented felony convictions.

Under Oklahoma law, candidate eligibility requirements are mandatory and not subject to discretion. The Mayes County Election Board is required to apply the statute as written and determine whether the candidate meets the legal qualifications for office.

The matter is currently pending before the Mayes County Election Board.

04/10/2026

🚨 Important Update in Oklahoma Criminal Law 🚨

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals recently issued a decision that could have a major impact on anyone currently on a deferred sentence.

In McKelvy v. State, the Court made it clear:

👉 A judge cannot enter a conviction based solely on a technical violation of probation.

So what does that mean?

A “technical violation” can include things like:
✔️ Failing a drug test
✔️ Missing a meeting
✔️ Other non-criminal probation violations

Under this ruling, those types of violations do NOT allow the court to turn your deferred sentence into a conviction.That’s a big deal.

Before this, even minor slip-ups could result in a felony conviction.
Now, the law limits what a court can do in those situations.

⚖️ Why this matters:

Protects individuals from losing the benefit of a deferred sentence over minor violations

Preserves opportunities for dismissal and expungement

Gives defense attorneys a strong legal argument to prevent convictions

If you or someone you know is facing a probation violation or has questions about a deferred sentence, this case could directly impact your situation.

03/30/2026

The Oklahoma House has passed HB 2015 and it is now headed to the Senate. This bill will directly impact landlords and property managers across Oklahoma if it becomes law.

Here is what landlords need to know.

HB 2015 proposes changes to the Oklahoma Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, specifically 41 O.S. Section 121. While it adds structure and clarity, it also creates new areas of potential liability.

What the law does

Tenants must provide written notice and allow up to 14 days for landlords to meaningfully begin repairs before filing suit

Landlords are not required to complete repairs within that time, but they must demonstrate real progress toward resolving the issue

Liability is tied more clearly to whether notice was given and whether the landlord acted

Tenant remedies are expanded to include damages, injunctive relief, and in some cases up to two months rent

The law clarifies procedures for repair and deduct and rent withholding

Attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party

Where landlords need to pay attention

This is not a one sided change and it creates real exposure risks

Tenants may now seek broader damages, including up to two months rent

Attorney fees can be shifted, meaning landlords who lose even part of a case could be responsible for the tenant’s legal fees

The phrase “meaningfully begin” is not defined, which will likely lead to disputes over whether a landlord acted quickly enough

Tenants are given a clearer process to withhold rent, which may complicate eviction proceedings

The law creates a step by step framework for tenant claims, making them easier to pursue

Landlords and property managers will need to closely track notices, repairs, and timelines to protect against liability

Bottom line

HB 2015 provides helpful structure, but it also increases risk if issues are not addressed promptly and properly documented

If you own property, manage property, or rent in Oklahoma, this bill will affect you

We encourage you to contact your State Senator or Representative and share your thoughts on HB 2015

If you have questions about how this may impact your leases, management practices, or current cases, contact our office

Big win for free speech in politics and our client!James Rea ran for Tulsa County Commissioner. After losing the electio...
03/23/2026

Big win for free speech in politics and our client!

James Rea ran for Tulsa County Commissioner. After losing the election, he filed suit against multiple defendants over campaign mailers that opposed him. We defended the case at both the district court and on appeal for our client.

The district court already dismissed part of the case and awarded our client attorney fees against Mr. Rea. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has now dismissed all remaining claims against our client, holding Mr. Rea to the heightened standard required of a politician.

That standard matters.

If you run for office, you step into the arena. Politics may not be pretty but political speech is protected, and the law requires actual proof of malice before courts get involved.

That didn’t exist here. The Courts protected political speech in Oklahoma.

Result: Case dismissed, Client cleared.

Thank you to our client for trusting us through this process.

Address

106 N Rowe Street
Pryor, OK
74361

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when McBride & McBride - Lawyers of Oklahoma posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category