Case law

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2024

Finally, because the right at issue is clearly established, officer Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. … It was clearly established that once Mr.

Halley ex rel. J.H. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

176 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This law was clearly established by 2014. See, e.g., Estate of B.I.C. v.

Caviness v. Johnson

614 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2008

Caviness also challenges Johnson’s claim to qualified immunity, contending the law was clearly established that excessive damage to his property can give rise to a constitutional claim and that the seizure of the knives and … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish that a defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Callaway v. Okmulgee School District 1

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2025

clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” … Plaintiff may show the law to be “clearly established” by citing an on-point Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision, or by showing “the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law

Redding v. Marsh

750 F. Supp. 473 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Marsh also claims qualified immunity. The affirmative defense of qualified immunity is available to all government officials. Harlow v. … The court finds that Marsh is entitled to qualified immunity in that his conduct did not violate the clearly established constitutional rights of which reasonable persons would have known.

Marlatt v. Murray County Jail

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Application of the summary judgment standard slightly differs where, as here, an individual defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity … To overcome this defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018).

Washington v. Anderson

387 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1974

Plaintiff has been seen numerous times by a qualified medical doctor. … D.Mo.1971) holds: “Neither can it be said to be unreasonable to resort to the judicious use of mace to regain control and establish order after lesser means have failed.”

Merrill v. Seagraves

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2025

Qualified immunity is a question of law, but disputes of fact that necessarily inform the qualified immunity analysis may go to a jury. Maestas v. Lujan, 351 F.3d 1001, 1007-09 (10th Cir.2003). … law for the qualified immunity analysis.” (#105 at 6).

Rhinehart v. Hughes County School District No. 32-1005

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2025

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known. … Furthermore, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Roberts

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 17, 2026

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants are “entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known.”

Avant v. Doke

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 3, 2024

If, however, qualified immunity is based on the law not being clearly established, the claims against the political entity may proceed.1 See Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan., 997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir.1993); Watson v. … Audrain County, Missouri, 968 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir.2020)(“We hold only that the officers are immune from suit because they did not violate Ivey’s clearly established rights.

Butler v. Branscum

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 27, 2024

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … In any event, it is by no means “clearly established” that Branscum’s conduct as to the vehicular chase was a constitutional violation.4 Qualified immunity is appropriate as to the car chase.

White

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2026

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Clearly Established Law Even when a complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that

Silsby v. Roberts

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 16, 2023

and that they are also entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”)

Dominguez v. Crow

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 27, 2021

A right is clearly established “when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows that the right must be as the plaintiff maintains.” … Addressing first the clearly-established prong, the court declines to dismiss on that basis.

Osborn v. Meitzen

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Nov 23, 2021

Alternatively, he contends that he acted reasonably under the circumstances and did not violate any clearly established constitutional law, and is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant Meitzen is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to identify a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Endicott v. Choctaw County City of Hugo Hospital Authority

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 28, 2024

Actually it was, by dint of defendant raising the defense of qualified immunity. … “General statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” Halley v.

Avant v. Doke

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 26, 2023

“General statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” Halley v. … Again, in the case at bar the record does not reflect an investigation, and under clearly established law the discharge was therefore unreasonable and not a basis for qualified immunity.

Creek Nation Indian Housing v. United States

677 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jan 4, 1988

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly shows that the detonation of the bombs was caused by the heat of the fire, rather than by any jarring of the bombs from the impact of the accident. … See In Re Air Crash Dis. at M.G. on Sept. 11, 1982, 769 F.2d 115, 121-23 (3rd Cir.1985) (“government establishment or approval of the specifications in question is a significant element” in establishing immunity).

Rodriguez v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2022

If the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified- immunity standard, the defendant prevails on the defense. A.M. v. … In the context of qualified immunity, the issue is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. See Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015).