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.
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
Case Information
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- PETITION
- OKLAHOMA COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM FEE - EFF. 07/01/04
- LENGTHY TRIAL FUND FEE
- OK COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES
- 10% OF CASA TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
- OK COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVOLVING FUND
- 10% OF COJC TO COURT CLERK REVOLVING FUND
- STATE JUDICIAL REV. FUND INTERPRETER & TRANSLATOR SERVICES
- COURTHOUSE SECURITY FEE
- 10% OF CHSC TO COURT CLERK RECOLVING FUND
- 15% TO DISTRICT COURT REVOLVING FUND
- COURT CLERK PRESERVATION FUND
- ISSUING SUMMONS - TYLER PECK (RET'D TO ATTY)
- DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, COUNTERCLAIM, & AFFIDAVIT
- DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF
- DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT
- DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPELARBITATION AND DISMISS PROCEEDINGS
- CM: SBG- THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT ON 6/12/25. ALONG WITH THE MOTION, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED A PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AND GRANTING DEFENDANT' COUNTERCLAIM. THE CLAIMS RAISED BT THE DEFENDANT ARE SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE AND HE MUST PROVIDE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE OPPOSING PARTY. THE DEFENDANT HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND THAT DISMISSAL IS THE NECESSARY REMEDY. THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CONTACTED THE COURT AND SET THIS MATTER FOR HEARING. HE HAS NOT PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE PLAINIFF. AS SUCH, THE COURT DECLINES TO SIGN THE PROPOSED ORDER THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT. SAME HAS BEEN DESTROYED. THIS MATTER WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE COURT UPON PROPER REQEST OF THE PARTIES.
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
- VERIFICATION
- PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
- PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS PROCEEDINGS
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
- NOTICE OF HEARING
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