Case law

Carver v. Driscoll

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 10, 2022

Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). … The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v.

Lay v. Crow

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Nov 8, 2021

Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). … The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v.

Lazy S Ranch Properties, LLC v. Valero Terminaling and Distribution

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 12, 2025

However, an expert's conclusions are not immune from scrutiny: “A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” General Elec. Co. v. … Trimble’s model is insufficient to establish damages if he cannot show the value of the property “immediately before the pollution.” Sinclair Oil & Gas Co., 288 P. at 983.

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 18, 2023

immunity in his individual capacity; (6) referral of Bryant’s conduct to the Office of the U.S. … While his failure to back up the phone after being notified of the potential for litigation was negligent, he clearly did not destroy the phone or the data on it in bad faith nor did he intend to deprive the plaintiff of

Pink

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 2026

No. 65 at 1 (Defendants stating Plaintiff “is clearly responding to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”). … “It is not enough to establish that the official should have known of the risk of harm.” Barney, 143 F.3d at 1310.

McCoy v. Farris

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2023

Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). … The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v.

Gregory v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2022

Consequently, plaintiffs may not proceed unless they can establish that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to their claim. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … Clearly, Bell Atlantic changed the legal analysis applicable to dismissal motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), creating a “refined standard” on such motions. Khalik v.

Rodriguez v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners

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

The court ruled that the plaintiff 5 had failed to establish a constitutional violation, either in reference to the first prong of qualified immunity analysis … Assuming arguendo a constitutional violation, however, plaintiff has not established a causal link between any county policy (as defined above) and the violation.

Endicott v. Choctaw County City of Hugo Hospital Authority

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 27, 2025

The party seeking the admission of the expert testimony has the burden to establish it’s admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Id at 592 n.10. … Rather it is clearly an opinion regarding how officers are trained to recognize signs of positional asphyxia and managing airways.

Lindamood v. Jordan

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 8, 2024

The “denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff, does not establish personal participation under § 1983.” Gallagher v. … Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly legible, only one side of the paper may be used, and additional sheets of paper shall have margins of no less than one (1) inch on the top, bottom

Wilks v. BNSF Railway Company

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 27, 2020

Rangel’s experience as an owner of a small railroad would establish his qualifications render his far- reaching opinions as an expert witness. … An expert's conclusions, however, are not completely immune from scrutiny.

Davis v. Muskogee, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2025

Davis’s constitutional rights and, as such, Defendant Jenkins was entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity. (Docket No. 74). … Davis was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Mr.

Bradshaw v. State of Oklahoma

398 F. Supp. 838 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1975

Judge conducting the evidenti-ary hearing was prejudice and bias against your petitioner and failed to give a fair and full hearing on the issues clearly presented in the application for Post Conviction relief and actually … The prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose to the jury any promise of leniency or immunity made to a key witness in a criminal prosecution. Giglio v.

Lavender v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 2019

Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). … Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a), the amended complaint must be clearly legible, and only one side of the paper may be used.

Garland v. Redeagle

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 10, 2021

. § 1983 for violations of her constitutional rights and for deliberate indifference, failure to train, and establishing a custom and practice of indifference resulting in violations of her constitutional rights. … In Barrios, the Court held that “because these ‘constitutional’ torts are now clearly ‘torts’ governed by the GTCA, the GTCA’s specific prohibition against tort suits arising out of the ‘operation or maintenance of any

In Re Wallace

14 F.2d 534 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1926

And in ease of the confirmation of a composition after the trustee has qualified the court may allow him, as compensation, not to exceed one-half of one per centum of the amount to be paid the creditors on such composition … oil operator in his individual and personal capacity, he was selected to administer the valuable estate of the bankrupt, and it shall be the order of the court that the receiver herein be allowed the maximum commissions established

Jones v. Eagle-North Hills Shopping Centre, L.P.

478 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2007

prevailing local hourly rates should apply. *1327 While ADA litigation may not be the most common in Oklahoma, the Court finds that this litigation is not so unusual or highly technical such that only out-of-state attorneys are qualified … Clearly, even the Plaintiff (himself a very educated and learned individual) should realize this was not adequate pre-suit notice.

Semet v. United States

253 F. Supp. 521 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1966

The Court knows and finds that Petitioner’s counsel was capable and qualified and that he rendered the Petitioner competent and prudent legal services in the circumstances. … With reference to Petitioner’s claim that he was unlawfully forced into a lineup, it is well established that a lineup is a permissible procedure. 21 Am. Jur.2d, Section 368, Criminal Law, page 391.

Steph v. Branch

255 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 22, 1966

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a suit brought by the plaintiff as the duly qualified Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Chickasaw Lumber Company of Duncan, Oklahoma, an Oklahoma Corporation, a bankrupt, hereafter called *528 the Bankrupt … It was also clearly established by this witness, through testimony and charts, that the Bankrupt became insolvent as defined by Section 67d(l) (d), of the Bankruptcy Act 1 on May 1, 1963, at which time its debts, including

Murphy v. Sirmons

497 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 1, 2007

The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, discussed what can be considered “clearly established Federal law” relevant to death penalty cases. … Respondent again asserts the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable determination of clearly established federal law.