Case law

Pool v. City of Cushing

184 Okla. 577 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1939

The rule as to immunity in the adoption of a plan applies only to governmental functions. … Clearly enough we cannot say that all reasonable men would come to the conclusion that the placing of the pole at that point was the exercise of reasonable care.

City of Duncan Ex Rel. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension & Retirement System v. Barnes

293 P.2d 590 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 7, 1956

Plaintiff takes the position that upon establishment of a pension system it automatically qualified to receive the funds in defendant’s hands. … Clearly, following the adjudication establishing unconstitutionality of the statutes, no funds were derived from the assessment of additional costs.

City of Pond Creek v. Haskell

21 Okla. 711 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1908

It very clearly attempts to extend an existing law by reference to its title onty. … This distinction we will endeavor to draw more clearly as we proceed.

Allen v. State Ex Rel. Board of Trustees of the Oklahoma Uniform Retirement System for Justices & Judges

769 P.2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 1988

The government is statutorily immune from damages incurred in the exercise of its adjudicative capacity. 36 The function’s classification depends on the act involved. 37 Because of the State’s immunity the claimant is not … (the URSJJ statutes) and (c) have retired on or after June 29, 1981, the effective date of the Act, and the surviving spouses of deceased members who qualify for retirement benefits with the exception of those members or

In Re Jones' Estate

147 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1930

The first provision would seem to lay a tax upon any property or interest therein, but this is qualified in the latter provision and clearly defined to be the transfer of tangible property in this state or of intangible property … The inevitable tendency of that view is to disturb good relations among the states and produce the kind of discontent expected to subside after establishment of the Union. The Federalist, No. VII.

State Ex Rel. State Insurance Fund v. JOA, Inc.

78 P.3d 534 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 2003

Id. at 129, We concluded therein that the action in that case was not in tort, and thus not barred by an immunity established by the Governmental Tort Claims Act. Id. at 115. … Governmental immunity is established by statute. Vander-pool v. State, 1988 OK 82 , 672 P.2d 1153, 1157 . The Fund must point to some statute that creates this immunity to paying attorney's fees.

Barfield v. Barfield

742 P.2d 1107 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 21, 1987

The Oklahoma State Legislature has clearly mani *1112 fested an intent that a worker who takes steps to assure his financial security shall not be penalized. … Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773, 778-779 (11th Cir.1985), governmental immunity; Dodson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 649 F.Supp. 1455, 1457-1460 (E.D.Va.1986), workers’ compensation immunity; Watkins v.

Fox v. Oklahoma Memorial Hospital

774 P.2d 459 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1989

II THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT SHIELD STATE EMPLOYEES FROM TORT LIABILITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE. … suffering and loss of earnings were a direct result of the gross negligence and reckless, wilful and wanton conduct of the hospital physicians and staff. 5 Fox also presented medical testimony that the 6V2 inch clamp was clearly

TORRES v. SEABOARD FOODS, LLC

373 P.3d 1057 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 2016

Employer.expands upon this latter principle and argues that the Legislature has the power to determine what type of injury "qualifies as [a] compensable injury ... … project, but this immunity shall not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications.

C & L Enterprises Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma

73 O.B.A.J. 3612 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 2002

Further, the record establishes that the con *4 tractor was required by the arbitrator to establish its claim through the submission of evidence, as mandated by the arbitration rules, and did so. … These preliminary expenses were clearly not compensable under the contract and so do not create a right to attorneys' fees under that contract.

Huff v. State

764 P.2d 183 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1988

I SECTION 155(14) IMMUNITY Relying on the provisions of 51 O.S. … ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT; ... MODIFYING AND ADDING EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY. ..." [Emphasis added.] 22 .

Ex Parte Patman

20 Okla. 846 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1908

It would seem to have long since been much too well established by the common law as well as our statutes that an indictment not void upon its face, regularly returned to and pending in a court having jurisdiction thereof … Where shall the party charged with a crime by indictment plead such immunity?

MOORE v. WARR ACRES NURSING CENTER, LLC.

376 P.3d 894 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 2016

side effects of the immunization; (ii) Each resident is offered an influenza immunization October 1 through March 31 annually, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized … immunization or did not receive the influenza immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal.... .

State v. Lynch

61 O.B.A.J. 2102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1990

Const, art. 2, § 7 as well as the immunities clause of the Okla. Const, art. 5, § 51. … guides which will apply uniformly without either violating due process rights or granting constitutional immun-ites.

Wah-Tsa-E-O-She v. Webster

69 Okla. 257 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1918

Section 1, art. 3, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, provides: “The qualified electors of the state shall be male citizens of the United States, male citizens of the state, and male persons of, Indian descent … Clearly, it was the purpose and intent of Congress and of the peoule of the proposed state in the erection of the state and in creating its government that these Indians should become citizens thereof.

Osborn v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

279 P.2d 1096 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1954

disallowed; that the American Red Cross is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of act of Congress of the United States; that at no time has it ever been incorporated under the laws of Oklahoma nor has it qualified … As a national corporation, therefore, it has the privilege and immunities of a domestic corporation of Oklahoma and the bequest to it is exempt from estate transfer taxes.

Salazar v. City of Oklahoma City

70 O.B.A.J. 862 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1999

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Judge Russell) gave summary judgment to both defendants, ruling that (a) the uncontrovert-ed probative support in the record established probable cause … As explained below, the federal-court roll’s absence clearly is fatal to City’s issue-preclusion defense. C.

City of Lawton v. Harkins

34 Okla. 545 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1912

charged with governmental functions in the public interest and for public purposes, and in the exercise of its powers and duties in respect of the enactment and enforcement of police regulations it is entitled to the same immunity … In the case at bar, it is conceded that Lantznester was a regularly appointed, qualified, and acting policeman under and by virtue of the provisions of the statutes of the state, and was not a special officer employed by

Weber v. Armco, Inc.

663 P.2d 1221 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1983

See 85 O.S.Supp.1982 § 12 which defines the extent of liability and immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act. … Some credence should also be given to the argument that any change in compensation law which would permit a covered employee to institute litigation against his employer, to recover for an injury clearly covered by the Workers

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety v. Gurich

238 P.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2010

"Statutory immunity for providing protective services (police or fire) is not co-extensive with a blanket immunity from common-law negligence for carrying out law enforcement duties." … T11 Exemptions 4, 5, and 6, when read together with this Court's explanations, define clearly the seope of statutory immunity concerning law enforcement.