Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Affiliations
District Court, E.D. Oklahoma — appointed by Ronald Reagan
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma — appointed by Ronald Reagan
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In Kornhass [1] granted summary judgment declaring minority business bid preference unconstitutional; in Calvey [6] addressed merits of Commerce Clause challenge to ACA mandate. Kornhass Construction, Inc. v. O… ↗ Calvey v. Obama ↗
This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment over the interpretation of benefits under a cancer insurance policy's radiation and chemotherapy provisions, which referred to reimbursement based on "actual charges" or "actual expenses." The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Okla. Stat. tit. 36, § 3651 applies to the policy and defines those terms as the amounts actually accepted by providers as full payment, thereby limiting the benefits owed. The core reasoning rested on principles of statutory construction finding no conflict or improper retroactive effect that would impair the contract, along with the absence of bad faith by the insurers in applying the statute.
This case involves multiple plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly its minimum coverage provision, on grounds including lack of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause and taxing powers, violation of the Tenth Amendment, infringement on religious freedoms and conscience regarding abortion funding, denial of equal protection, due process violations, and Fourth Amendment privacy concerns over medical information disclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims for lack of standing and ripeness. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint but dismissed the Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Claims for all plaintiffs due to failure to allege sufficient injury for standing. It also dismissed the First, Second, Third, and Sixth Claims for plaintiffs with existing health insurance on standing and ripeness grounds, while denying dismissal of those same claims for three uninsured plaintiffs who sufficiently alleged imminent injury and a direct current impact from the Act.
healthcarefederal powerreligious libertycivil rights
The case involved a career teacher suing her school district and officials after her contract was not renewed for the 2009-10 school year, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of substantive and procedural due process as well as state claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. It reasoned that the district followed required procedures under Oklahoma law through multiple evaluations, professional improvement plans, written recommendations, and hearings, that the plaintiff received adequate process and showed no protected property interest violation, and that she presented insufficient evidence to support the state law claims.
This case is a federal habeas petition by Gregory Thompson challenging his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree felony murder arising from an attempted armed robbery during which the victim was killed. The district court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, considered the petitioner's objections focused on evidentiary sufficiency, and denied relief. The court held that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, as the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, permitted a rational jury to find that Thompson aided and abetted the underlying felony and that the death resulted from it. The opinion clarified that Oklahoma felony-murder law requires proof of intent to commit the predicate felony but not specific intent to cause death.
This case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which the relator alleged that Red River Service Corporation and related defendants submitted false or fraudulent invoices to the government for work that was not performed, was performed by others, or was improperly billed as separate charges rather than included in original contract scopes. The court denied the motion to dismiss the FCA claims, finding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible claims under Twombly and Rule 9(b), including specific examples of misbilling for labor, equipment, and contract modifications. However, the court granted dismissal of the anti-retaliation claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) because the relator did not allege that defendants knew of his investigation or reports to federal authorities. The court also dismissed claims against certain individual defendants for lack of allegations but denied dismissal of the state-law claims, as supplemental jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
In United States v. Moser, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a criminal complaint, claiming inadequate time to respond to the government's psychiatric evaluation motion, a Speedy Trial Act violation from the failure to indict within 30 days, and the absence of a probable cause or detention hearing despite over six months of detention. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying dismissal. The court reasoned that defense counsel had declined additional preparation time with no shown prejudice, the Speedy Trial clock was tolled by competency proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), competency motions may be filed at any time and suspend proceedings, and the arrest warrant already provided the required probable cause determination.