TIGGES v. ANDREWS, 390 P.3d 251

Debbie Tigges sued multiple defendants after a pool filter exploded, injuring her husband and child.
Trial court granted summary judgment for retailer Blue Haven on most claims based on the statute of repose; Hayward Industries' judgment was later set aside.
COCA affirmed summary judgment for Blue Haven except as to failure-to-warn claims, leaving disputed facts for trial; certiorari was denied and mandate issued.
After partial reversal, Tigges sought Judge J. Don Andrews’s disqualification relying solely on 20 O.S. § 95.10(B) and Rule 15 procedures.
The trial judge and the county chief judge denied recusal; Tigges petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing reassignment.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and denied the writ, finding no evidence in the appellate record showing bias or other disqualifying conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 95.10(B) grants a party an automatic right to disqualify a judge on remand by withholding consent	Tigges: § 95.10(B) allows parties to prevent the same judge from presiding unless all parties agree	Respondent/Court: Judicial assignment is a judicial administrative function; § 95.10(B) does not give parties unilateral removal power	Denied — § 95.10(B) does not authorize parties to unilaterally remove a judge; assignments are controlled by the judiciary
Whether reversal or partial reversal on appeal alone warrants disqualification	Tigges: Reversal of dispositive rulings evidences a basis for disqualification	Court: Reversal alone is insufficient; need evidence of bias, impropriety, or lack of objectivity	Denied — mere reversal does not show disqualifying conduct
Proper procedure to seek reassignment after remand	Tigges: Invoked Rule 15 and § 95.10 language to seek reassignment	Court: § 95.10(A) permits application to the Supreme Court only when appellate record contains evidence showing disqualifying conduct; otherwise Rule 15 is the mechanism	Denied — no evidence in appellate record; Rule 15 and ordinary recusal standards govern

Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (2009 OK) (Court may order reassignment on remand where record shows judge abused discretion)
Carrigan‑St. Clair v. Wildwood Preserve Farms, Inc., 228 P.3d 1198 (2009 OK) (§ 95.10 is narrowly drawn; reassignment via appellate record requires persuasive evidence of nonneutrality)
Casey v. Casey, 270 P.3d 109 (2011 OK) (reversal alone does not justify disqualification absent evidence of bias or impropriety)