LLiberty Precedent
LEARN IT

Read the record. Build the brief. Test your reasoning.

Turn an authenticated Oklahoma opinion into a class-ready study workflow while keeping the court's record separate from your own analysis.

1 Choose a case2 Read the opinion3 Brief it yourself4 Compare the guide
● AUTHENTICATED OKLAHOMA OPINION

Marshall v. City of Tulsa

2024 OK 78 · Case No. 122429 · November 6, 2024
Read full opinion ↗
Source-aware study brief

Holding, disposition, citation, docket, court, and date come from the authenticated record. Facts, issue framing, rule labels, and analysis are study scaffolds—not quotations or a substitute for reading the opinion.

STUDY SCAFFOLD

Facts

This is a torts & government matter. The authenticated record identifies Tulsa County as the trial-court origin. The complete legally material facts must be taken from the linked opinion.

STUDY SCAFFOLD

Issue

Study question: How did Oklahoma law govern this torts & government dispute in the posture described as appeal from summary judgment?

STUDY SCAFFOLD

Rule

The authenticated holding summary supplies the starting proposition: A pet-sitter with care and control of a dog qualified as an owner for Oklahoma's dog-bite statute, and the City owed no duty on the record presented.

STUDY SCAFFOLD

Analysis

Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the matter through appeal from summary judgment. The authenticated decision record reports the result as trial court judgment affirmed. Read the full opinion for the court's reasoning, authorities, and treatment of competing arguments.

AUTHENTICATED RECORD

Holding

A pet-sitter with care and control of a dog qualified as an owner for Oklahoma's dog-bite statute, and the City owed no duty on the record presented.

AUTHENTICATED RECORD

Disposition

Trial court judgment affirmed

Compare with the same case type →