 We are pleased to announce that attorney Chase McBride has successfully completed a comprehensive course in DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing using the 2025 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and International Association of Chiefs of Police curriculum.
This training addresses the procedures law-enforcement officers are taught to use when investigating suspected impaired driving, including the administration and interpretation of standardized field sobriety tests. For individuals charged with DUI or DWI, hiring an attorney with this training can provide a meaningful advantage. It allows counsel to evaluate the investigation from the officer’s perspective and identify issues such as:
This additional training reflects our continued commitment to providing informed, thorough, and aggressive representation to individuals facing DUI and other impaired-driving charges throughout Oklahoma. Chase McBride will be speaking at the upcoming Informational Forum regarding State Questions 846 and 844. His presentation will focus on the legal framework and specific language of the two state questions appearing on the August ballot. Chase is honored to participate alongside community leaders Kendal Prather Rhoads of the Mayes County Election Board, Mayes County Treasurer Bobbie Martin, and Dr. Lisa Supercinski Muller, Superintendent of Pryor Public Schools. The forum will be emceed by Houston Wayne Brittain. Thank you to the Pryor Area Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas J. Harrison Pryor Public Library for hosting this important community discussion. The forum will be held August 6, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the meeting rooms of the Thomas J. Harrison Pryor Public Library, 505 E. Graham Avenue in Pryor. Anyone interested in learning more about State Questions 846 and 844 is encouraged to attend.  The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals recently issued an important child-support decision in Fancher v. McDowell.
The issue was how child support should be calculated when the parents’ combined income is higher than the top amount listed in Oklahoma’s child-support guideline chart. The trial court had accepted the father’s offer to pay $2,250 per month. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed that decision, making clear that child support in high-income cases cannot simply be based on what the paying parent is willing to pay. When the parents’ income exceeds the guideline cap, the guideline amount is only the starting point. The court must then determine an additional amount based on the evidence, including the children’s actual needs, the parents’ ability to pay, and the standard of living appropriate for the children under the circumstances. This is especially important in high-income cases because the guideline chart does not automatically capture the full financial picture. Without that additional analysis, child support could be artificially limited even when the evidence shows the children’s needs and lifestyle justify more support. The Court also emphasized that this rule applies in paternity cases, not just divorce cases. Children should not be treated differently simply because their parents were never married. The takeaway is straightforward: in high-income child-support cases, the court has to do the math and look at the evidence. The number cannot just be what one parent offers or what sounds reasonable.
We are proud to share that Chase McBride of McBride & McBride has been selected as Oklahoma Magazine’s Best of the Best 2026 for Best Attorney.
As Oklahoma Magazine stated, “Chase McBride of McBride & McBride offers a tailored, results-driven approach across civil and criminal cases.” Oklahoma Magazine’s Best of the Best recognizes outstanding professionals, businesses, and organizations across the state of Oklahoma. Be sure to check out the July edition of Oklahoma Magazine to see Chase and the other Best of the Best winners from across the state. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court held that federal law does not stop Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received within five business days after the election.
The Court’s point was fairly simple: federal law sets Election Day as the day voters must make their choice. But the current federal statutes do not say that every absentee ballot must physically arrive at the election office by Election Day. That distinction mattered. The Republican National Committee and others argued that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day unlawfully extends the election. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the Fifth Circuit. The Court made clear it was not deciding whether this is the best policy. It was not saying Congress could never create a national receipt deadline. It was simply saying Congress has not done that in the current federal election-day statutes. So, for now, states may continue to set their own rules on when absentee ballots must be received, so long as the voter’s choice was made by Election Day. The dissent saw it differently and argued that accepting ballots after Election Day means the election is not actually completed on Election Day. This is a significant ruling for absentee voting across the country, especially in states that already count ballots mailed by Election Day but received afterward. Need help with your election? Contact McBride & McBride. |
Call Now: 918-825-3038 Categories |
RSS Feed