Activity
-
2024 was a pretty big year. I had the honor of serving as President of the Oklahoma Bar Association. We accomplished a lot, including implementing a…
2024 was a pretty big year. I had the honor of serving as President of the Oklahoma Bar Association. We accomplished a lot, including implementing a…
Liked by David A. Poarch
Experience
-
Bailey and Poarch
-
-
Education
Organizations
-
Oklahoma Bar Association
President, 2015
Other similar profiles
Explore more posts
-
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, a litigation law firm in Kansas City, made a five-year, $250,000 commitment to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law’s bar preparation fund. Their gift supports an initiative by the law school to provide a commercial bar preparation program and in-person supplemental course at no additional cost to students. Partner Jack Hyde (J.D. ’11) serves the Law Alumni Association as a board member. “The long-term success of UMKC is vital to the local bar and firms like ours based in Kansas City," said Hyde. "A lot of students end up working in the community they graduate from, so having the school here is vital as it’s the only law school in Kansas City. Many students were fortunate to have support from the firms we were going to work for when it came to bar preparation. Not everyone has that support, and it can be a big obstacle. We knew this would be a meaningful way to give back to students that would help them the most. Personally, I give back for two primary reasons. I give back in gratitude for the excellent education that I received and the opportunities that it has given me. I also hope that my support will help others have those same great experience and opportunities. But, for whatever reason we each give back, the Kansas City legal community is better for having a strong legal program at UMKC.” Learn more about giving to the law school: https://lnkd.in/g5XRfWwb
2 Comments -
Winston & Strawn LLP
⏲️ In this episode of the #WinstonMinute, associate Olivia Wogon breaks down the complexities of patent damages, focusing on a recent challenge to expert methodology in the Eastern District of Texas. Learn more about our Patent Litigation Practice here: https://bit.ly/3YBK1eT #patentlaw #damages
2 Comments -
Thomas Rutledge
For the CTA Warriors - FinCEN just updated its website with a new Alert, it providing: Alert: Ongoing Litigation – Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. McHenry, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.) & Voluntary Submissions [Updated January 24, 2025] In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports. **** On January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s motion to stay a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas (Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry—formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland). As a separate nationwide order issued by a different federal judge in Texas (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury) still remains in place, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN despite the Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop. Reporting companies also are not subject to liability if they fail to file this information while the Smith order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports. ============= This Alert replaces a substantially longer discussion of the CTA-litigation environment.
-
Justin Lollman
What new cases are brewing at the Oklahoma Supreme Court? ⤵️ Since January 1, the Court has granted cert in three cases. Here’s what they’re about: 🏛️ St. Anthony South Behavioral Health v. Goodwin, Case No. 121,192 • This is a worker’s comp case, involving an issue of statutory interpretation. • It concerns 85A O.S. §56(B), which provides that “[t]he Commission on application of the employee shall order one change of treating physician.” • The question presented is: Did the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) err in holding that §56(B) limits an injured worker to one change of treating physician per case regardless of the number of injured body parts involved? 🏛️ Cobblescones Coffee & Pastry LLC v. Town of Medicine Park, Case No. 121,245 • This appeal involves a dispute over the effect of a plaintiff’s motion to amend its petition on a statutory filing deadline. • It concerns 11 O.S. §43-109.1, which provides that any suit challenging a municipal zoning ordinance must be filed with the district court within 30 business days of approval. • After the Town of Medicine Park approved a new zoning ordinance, Plaintiffs (who already had a lawsuit pending against the town) filed a motion seeking leave to amend their petition to add a claim challenging ordinance. The motion to amend was filed within the 30 day filing window but was not granted until after that window had closed. • COCA affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims as untimely under §43-109.1. • The question presented is: Did COCA err in holding that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their petition failed to satisfy 11 O.S. § 43-109.1’s 30-day time limitation? 🏛️ Corywell Roofing & Construction, Inc. v. Burgess Farms, LLC, Case No. 121,275 • This appeal involves a dispute over how to instruct the jury when a party asserts overlapping breach-of-contract and negligence claims. • The case arises from a construction dispute. Defendant hired Plaintiff to make roof repairs. When the work was finished, Defendant failed to pay the full amount due. Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence, alleging the work done was deficient. • Defendant’s negligence and breach-of-contract counterclaims were based on the same facts and sought the same damages. • The district court refused to instruct the jury on Defendant’s negligence theory. • The jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor on both parties’ contract claims. • COCA reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Defendant’s negligence theory of recovery. • The issue presented is: In a construction case, when a party asserts claims for breach of contract and negligence based on the same facts and seeking the same damages, does a trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the party’s negligence claim? #oklahomaappeals #appellatelinkedin
7 Comments
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content