Oklahoma linebacker Owen Heinecke has been cleared to return to the Sooners for another season.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma has asked the state Supreme Court to order Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $9.3 billion to cover the entire anticipated cost of combatting the state's opioid crisis, arguing in its appeal that a lower court’s award wasn’t enough. The company appealed Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman's order in December 2019 and the state appealed in January. “Nothing less than the fate of Oklahoma hangs in the balance,” attorneys for the state told justices in an appeal brief. As Oklahomans have continued to suffer and die, all eyes are now on this case,” attorneys for the state said. “The State of Oklahoma cannot — and will never — abate this crisis unless the Judgment is affirmed.”

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. - The Oklahoma judge who recently ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for its role in the state's opioid crisis says he made a mathematical error when calculating the judgment. As part of the landmark verdict in August, Judge Thad Balkman set aside $107,683,000 to help combat neonatal abstinence syndrome, or NAS. On Tuesday, Balkman agreed with Johnson and Johnson regarding the error. The judge still needs to decide if the court will continue to monitor the opioid crisis for the next 20 years and potentially award more money to the state. Johnson & Johnson has already indicated they will appeal any decision.

"I recognize that I'll probably be known as the opioid judge," he tells CNN. On the other is Johnson & Johnson, one of the nation's most recognized brands best known for its baby powder, which has said it did nothing wrong. It's all been a wild ride for the "opioid judge" -- who before claiming that monicker had another pretty cool claim to fame: the guy whose boyhood home was immortalized in the iconic 1986 movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." Yes, he says, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals created a public nuisance and should pay more than $572 million to fix the problem it created. A lesson for the youthThe night before he announced his decision, Balkman took to another podium.

Shutterstock via CNN(CNN) - In a landmark decision, an Oklahoma judge on Monday ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for its role in the state's opioid crisis. Oklahoma is one of dozens of states suing opioid drugmakers and this case is the first state case to reach trial. Oklahoma battles Johnson & JohnsonAhead of Monday's verdict, Oklahoma and Johnson & Johnson filed their final pleas to Balkman earlier this month, essentially making one final pitch following seven weeks of trial. The state essentially argued that Johnson & Johnson was a "public nuisance." "In addition to those fundamental legal defects, the State undeniably failed to prove its case," Johnson & Johnson said in its nearly 200-page filing.

Johnson & Johnson has denied any wrongdoing and said it has been made a "scapegoat." If the judge were to side with Johnson & Johnson, it would provide the pharmaceutical industry with a precedent to defend in cases around the country, observers said. "Johnson & Johnson took a gamble here, going to trial in front of the world in a televised courtroom. Johnson & Johnson attorney Sabrina Strong snapped back: "This is not about hiding the truth." That left Johnson & Johnson alone to defend itself in court.

Shutterstock via CNN(CNN) - In its final filing of a case being watched around the country, the state of Oklahoma implored a judge to deliver a record $17.2 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson for flooding the state with opioids. Johnson & Johnson argued in its filing that the state's case was flimsy, saying that the public nuisance accusation is based on "radical theories unmoored from more than a century of Oklahoma case law." "In addition to those fundamental legal defects, the State undeniably failed to prove its case," Johnson & Johnson said in its nearly 200-page filing. "It will also be important because it could be the first case to recognize the nuisance theory in the opioid context." "This case illustrates the absurd results that flow from such legal distortions," Johnson & Johnson said.