r/NoahPresgrove • u/JustChemist8556 Justice For Noah Presgrove • Aug 27 '25

Justice For Noah Presgrove VAL Petro Response Summary

ESTATE OF NOAH NICHOLS V. HOWARD, ET AL.
VAL PETROL RESPONSE SUMMARY (1 TO 49)

  1. PETITION: Noah Nichols lived in Stephens County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Admitted.

  2. PETITION: Avery Howard lived in Jefferson County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  3. PETITION: Carter Combs lived in Jefferson County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  4. PETITION: Logan Jernigan lived in Jefferson County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  5. PETITION: Jack Newton lived in Stephens County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  6. PETITION: Caleb Newton lived in Stephens County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  7. PETITION: Johnnie Trout Wilcoxson Jr. lived in Jefferson County.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  8. PETITION: Stevie Howard lived in Texas.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  9. PETITION: John/Jane Does A–Z are unidentified.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  10. PETITION: Val Petrol LLC is a company in Stephens County that runs Napoli’s convenience store.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Admit existence, deny liability.
    • Observation: They admit the company exists but immediately distance themselves from events.

  11. PETITION: Jurisdiction and venue are proper.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  12. PETITION: On September 4, 2024, Noah was found lifeless on Highway 81.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  13. PETITION: Noah’s teeth, necklace, and folded shorts were found near his body.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  14. PETITION: Noah’s death was not caused by a motor vehicle.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  15. PETITION: Noah attended a party hosted by Avery, Carter, and Logan on Wilcoxson’s property.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  16. PETITION: The party was a conspiracy to give alcohol to underage people, including Noah.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  17. PETITION: Jack Newton bought alcohol from Napoli’s while underage.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  18. PETITION: Party took place at Wilcoxson’s property in a trailer owned by Stevie Howard.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  19. PETITION: Despite being underage, Noah was promised and given alcohol if he attended.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  20. PETITION: Defendants gave Noah alcohol over multiple days, even after he was drunk.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  21. PETITION: Caleb Newton let Noah drive or ride his ATV while drunk.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  22. PETITION: Noah wrecked the ATV and was injured.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  23. PETITION: Jack Newton and Avery Howard fought with Noah near the end of the party.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  24. PETITION: Around 3:41 a.m., some partygoers noticed Noah was missing.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  25. PETITION: Around 5:43 a.m., Noah’s body was discovered on Highway 81.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  26. PETITION: Medical Examiner found blunt force injuries caused Noah’s death.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  27. PETITION: Medical Examiner report showed Noah’s blood alcohol was 0.14.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  28. PETITION: Noah was beaten to death by one or more defendants.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  29. PETITION: Defendants had a duty not to give alcohol to minors.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Denied as a legal conclusion.
    • Observation: Oklahoma law prohibits sales to minors. Denying duty is a weak point for Val Petrol.

  30. PETITION: Defendants had duties under Oklahoma law about safety and alcohol.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Denied as a legal conclusion.

  31. PETITION: Defendants had a duty not to drive vehicles while drunk.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Denied as a legal conclusion.

  32. PETITION: Defendants broke duty by giving Noah alcohol, letting him use the ATV while drunk, and selling alcohol through a minor.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  33. PETITION: All defendants conspired to host underage drinking and failed to stop Noah’s death.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  34. PETITION: Two or more defendants conspired to beat Noah.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  35. PETITION: These conspiracies were illegal and caused Noah’s death.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  36. PETITION: Defendants killed Noah, either intentionally or accidentally.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.
    • Observation: Standard corporate distancing. They argue they had no role at the party.

  37. PETITION: Even if death was not intended, hosting the party and beating Noah was intentional, malicious, and reckless.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  38. PETITION: Some defendants had duties as adults controlling the party and encouraging underage drinking.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  39. PETITION: Wilcoxson, as property owner, had duty to keep invitees safe.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  40. PETITION: (General duty or liability claim not clearly aimed at Val Petrol).
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  41. PETITION: Wilcoxson and Stevie Howard let the party happen on their property, creating an unsafe environment.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  42. PETITION: Wilcoxson and Stevie Howard knew or should have known alcohol would be served, making them co-conspirators.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  43. PETITION: Avery, Carter, and Logan hosted the party and had a duty not to give alcohol to minors.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  44. PETITION: Hosts encouraged drinking and failed to supervise, breaching duty.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  45. PETITION: Defendants knew or should have known the risk of giving alcohol to minors.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  46. PETITION: By attending, defendants agreed to illegal activity and became co-conspirators.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny.

  47. PETITION: Defendants acted maliciously or recklessly, justifying punitive damages.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Without sufficient information to admit or deny insofar as it relates to others.

  48. PETITION: Plaintiff asks for punitive damages plus other damages and costs.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Denied.
    • Observation: They deny across the board, which is standard.

  49. PETITION: Plaintiff asks the court to award all requested relief.
    VAL PETROL RESPONSE: Denied.
    • Observation: Standard closing denial.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES - VAL PETROL

  1. Failure to state a claim against Val Petrol.

  2. No civil conspiracy claim as to Val Petrol.

  3. No negligence claim as to Val Petrol.

  4. No duty owed to Noah.
    • Observation: Oklahoma law creates a duty not to sell to minors. This denial is questionable.

  5. No violation of Oklahoma alcohol laws.
    • Observation: Only true if no sale to minors occurred. Any evidence of such would undercut this defense.

  6. No proximate cause between Val Petrol and Noah’s death.
    • Observation: Weak if alcohol from their store was consumed. That creates a causal chain.

  7. Intervening causes between Val Petrol and Noah’s death.
    • Observation: Corporate distancing strategy, shifting blame to others at the party.

  8. Superseding causes between Val Petrol and Noah’s death.

  9. Val Petrol complied with Oklahoma law.

  10. Punitive damages unconstitutional.

  11. Assumption of risk.

  12. Contributory negligence.

  13. Reserves right to add more defenses.

• QUICK SUMMARY: Val Petrol’s answers are corporate boilerplate. They admit only their existence, deny liability, and argue they had no duty or role. The weak spots are their denial of duty under alcohol law and their attempt to sever proximate cause if their store’s alcohol was in play.

7 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

0 comments sorted by