Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Oklahoma unified county

Court

Oklahoma unified county

Oklahoma

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2022-06-08
Type Petition For Judicial Review
Docket 91 entries
Disposition dismiss
Photo of Hon. Taylor, Orable Shawn S

Judge

Hon. Taylor, Orable Shawn S

Oklahoma unified county

Oklahoma

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. FILE & ENTER PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
  2. LAW LIBRARY
  3. OKLAHOMA COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM FEE - EFFECTIVE 07/01/04
  4. LENGTHY TRIAL FUND FEE
  5. OK COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
  6. 10% OF CASA TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
  7. OK COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVOLVING FUND
  8. 10% OF COJC TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
  9. COURTHOUSE SECURITY FEE
  10. 10% OF CHSC TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
  11. STATE JUDICIAL REV. FUND INTERPRETER & TRANSLATOR SERVICES
  12. 15% TO DISTRICT COURT REVOLVING FUND
  13. COURT CLERK PRESERVATION FUND
  14. ISSUE SUMMONS TO PLAINTIFF (3)
  15. AJE: MONIES DUE THE FOLLOWING AGENCY(IES) REDUCED
  16. AJE: COST DUE TO CARD ALLOCATION FEE
  17. MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM
  18. AUTHORITY
  19. ANSWER
  20. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (JENNIFER FISCHER FOR DEFENDANT
  21. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTERPRISE SERVICES, CIVIL
  22. SERVICE DIVISION "OMES")
  23. ORDER SETTING HEARING (08/31/2022 AT 2:00 P.M.)
  24. CM:MD (TAYLOR) CSR: NONE. NO APPEARANCES. CASE COMES ON
  25. FOR MOTION TO DISMISS. COURT ORDERS CASE STRICKEN DUE
  26. TO NO APPEARANCES.
  27. ORDER SETTING HEARING (10-18-22 AT 2:30PM)
  28. ORDER SETTING HEARING (10-18-22 AT 2:30PM)
  29. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO GRDA MOTION TO DISMISS
  30. SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO GRDA MOTION TO
  31. DISMISS
  32. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (TIM TUCK FOR DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA
  33. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENET AND ENTERPRISE SERVICES)
  34. CM:SS (TAYLOR) FILED ON 10-19-22. CSR: NONE. PLAINTIFF
  35. PRESENT BY ATTORNEY DANIEL GAMINO. DEFENDANT GRDA
  36. PRESENT BY ATTORNEY LEAH MESSNER. DEFENDANT OMES
  37. PRESENT BY ATTORNEY TIM TUCK. CASE COMES ON FOR MOTION
  38. TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT GRDA. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL
  39. HEARD. COURT ORDERS MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. MR.
  40. GAMINO TO PREPARE ORDER.
  41. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (6-27-23 AT 9:30AM)
  42. CM:SS (TAYLOR) CSR: NONE. PER TELEPHONIC ANNOUNCEMENT
  43. FROM DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY, CASE IS RESET BY AGREEMENT
  44. OF THE PARTIES FROM 6-27-23 AT 9:30AM TO 6-30-23 AT
  45. 9:30AM.
  46. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
  47. CM:SS (TAYLOR) CSR: NONE. PLAINTIFF PRESENT BY ATTORNEY
  48. DANIEL GAMINO. DEFENDANT PRESENT BY ATTORNEY LEAH
  49. MESSNER. CASE COMES ON FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE.
  50. COUNSEL TO ARRANGE FOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS OF OMES TO
  51. BE OBTAINED. AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER TO BE SUBMITTED.
  52. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064
  53. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  54. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 MICHAEL TURNER,
  55. COMPLAINANT, MICHAEL TURNER FILINGS
  56. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 GRDA,
  57. AGENCY/RESPONDENT FILINGS
  58. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 CSD RULINGS AND
  59. NOTICES ISSUED
  60. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 ADMITTED
  61. EXHIBITS- TURNER, COMPLAINANT
  62. CERTIFICATION OF RECORD CSD-2022-2064 ADMITTED
  63. EXHIBITS- GRDA, AGENCY/RESPONDENT
  64. ANSWER BY DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY
  65. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN CHIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
  66. ANSWER BRIEF BY DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY
  67. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE DIVISION IN MICHAEL TURNER V. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY COMPLAINT NO. CSD-2022-2064
  68. PLAINTIFF'S REPLAY BRIEF
  69. AGREED ORDER (11-5-24 AT 2 PM)
  70. COURT REPORTER FEE
  71. CM: PG (TAYLOR) CSR: D. MARTIN. PLAINTIFF PRESENT WITH ATTORNEY DANIEL GAMINO. DEFENDANT PRESENT BY ATTORNEY HEATH LOFTON. CASE COMES ON FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL HEARD. COURT ORDERS AGREED FINDINGS OF FACTS BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 10 DAYS. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS.
  72. APPENDIX ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTERPRISE SERVICES TITLE 260, CHAPTER 130: CIVIL SERVICE AND HUMAN CAPITAL MODERNIZATION RULES
  73. DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO CORRECT MINUTE ORDER
  74. CM: PG (TAYLOR) FILED 11-18-24. COMES ON FOR INSTANTER FOR DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO CORRECT MINUTE ORDER. COURT GRANTS MOTION AND MINUTE CORRECTED TO REFLECT: COURT ORDERS AGREED FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 10 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT.
  75. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT BY DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY
  76. AGREED FINDINGS OF FACT
  77. MR. TURNER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
  78. DEFENDANT GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
  79. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (MATTHEW LAFON FOR RESPONDENT)
  80. MOTION TO WITHDRAW TIM TUCK AND JENNIFER FISCHER WALFORD AS COUNSELS OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTERPRISE SERVICE
  81. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW TIM TUCK AND JENNIFER FISCHER WALFORD AS COUNSELS OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTERPRISE SERVICES

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more