¶1 Pursuant to Rule 8 (Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings), Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, Respondent submitted an affidavit, filed April 5, 2024, seeking to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and relinquish his right to practice law pending disciplinary proceedings. On the same date, Complainant filed an application to this Court for an order approving the resignation of Respondent and an application to assess costs in the amount of $1,468.01. Upon consideration of the matter we find:

¶0 The appellant, Carl Fleig, lost a lawsuit stemming from a contract dispute over roofing work done in conjunction with the purchase of a house. Subsequently, the trial court awarded $51,331.00 in attorney fees against Fleig. He appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's attorney fee award. We granted certiorari only to address whether the trial court's order awarding attorney fees evidences that the trial court complied with the directives of State ex rel . Burk v. City of Oklahoma City , 1979 OK 115 , 598 P.2d 659 . We hold that it does not.

¶1 On July 21, 2023, Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed a verified complaint against Respondent Ronald Edward Durbin, II, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. On March 3, 2024, Complainant filed an amended complaint and verified application for an order for an order of emergency interim suspension pursuant to Rules 6 and 6.2A of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app 1-A. With the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, the OBA requests an emergency interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP.

¶1 Marcus Larod Jackson, Appellant, was tried by jury with co-defendant Juwan Square and found guilty of Count 1, racketeering, in violation of 22 O.S.2011, § 1403 (A); Count 2, conspiracy to commit racketeering, in violation of 22 O.S.2011, § 1403 (D); Counts 3 and 4, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1289.17A ; Count 5, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652 (C); Count 6, shooting with intent to kill, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652 (A); and Counts 7 and 8, possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283 (A), in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CF-2019-417. The jury found Counts 1 through 6 were committed after former conviction of two or more felonies, and Counts 7 and 8 were committed after former conviction of a felony; and assessed punishment of sixty years in each count. The Honorable Michael D. Tupper, District Judge, pronounced judgment and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. 1 Mr. Jackson appeals in the following propositions of error:

¶1 Appellant Derek Don Posey appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Canadian County, Case No. CF-2013-463, for his First Degree Murder convictions and death sentences for the deaths of Amy Gibbins (Counts 1 and/or 2) and her son, Bryor Gibbins (Counts 3 and/or 4), in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7. 1 Posey's jury fixed punishment at death for both murder convictions after finding the same three aggravating circumstances as to each victim, namely: (1) that Posey knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; 2 (2) that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; 3 and (3) that there existed a probability that Posey would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. 4 The Honorable Bob W. Hughey, Associate District Judge, presided over Posey's jury trial and sentenced him to death for each murder pursuant to the jury's verdicts, with all sentences to be served concurrently. 5 Posey raises eleven claims for review; however, no claim warrants relief. We affirm Posey's Judgment and Sentence.

¶1 Appellant, Micky Todd Washburne, appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Washington County, Case No. CF-2021-261, for Lewd or Indecent Proposals to a Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 1123 (A)(1).

¶1 Alberta Rose Jones appeals various district court rulings related to and including the divorce Decree entered in this marriage dissolution action she filed against Appellee Donald David Jones. The substance of her appeal asserts that the "default decree" is void because she did not receive the required notice of the hearing when the Decree was entered. That contention is not supported by the record. Further, Alberta failed to preserve appellate review for any of the issues argued in her appellate briefing. Nonetheless, we review the Decree for fundamental error. Finding none, we affirm.

¶1 North Star Mutual Insurance Company appeals that portion of the district court's order denying its motion for attorney fees in this declaratory judgment action. The single issue presented by this appeal is whether North Star is entitled to attorney fees, as a matter of law, pursuant to 36 O.S.2011 § 3629 (B). We hold that it is. That part of the order denying North Star's motion for attorney fees is reversed, and this case is remanded to determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded North Star consistent with this Opinion.

¶1 The defendant/appellant, Christopher Foshee (Foshee), appeals an order granting in part his motion for costs and denying his motion for attorneys' fees. Foshee filed two offers of judgment in this case. On September 6, 2019, Foshee served and filed an offer of judgment pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1101.1 (A). Then, on December 2, 2019, Foshee served and filed an offer of judgment pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1101 . Following a jury trial during which Foshee prevailed, Foshee sought his costs under 12 O.S.2021 §§ 929 and 942 and his attorneys' fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1101.1 (A) against plaintiff/appellee David Teasdale (Teasdale). The district court awarded Foshee his costs, but denied his request for attorneys' fees, finding that Foshee's last offer of judgment pursuant to 12 O.S.2021 § 1101 controlled. We affirm the district court's Order on Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Order) awarding Foshee's costs. However, as to the award of attorneys' fees, we vacate the Order denying Foshee's attorneys' fees, and remand the case for entry of a new order as to attorneys' fees consistent with this Opinion.