Case law

Lewis v. City of Tulsa

179 Okla. 176 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1936

Immunity from liability which surrounds a judicial or legislative act is generally absolute, as ■ distinguished from qualified. … The rule of judicial or leg-is'ative immunity does not apply to that class of cases. .

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hessenflow

69 Okla. 185 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 1918

A plaintiff seeking to establish negligence in the' use of improper -equipment, will not often be able to establish siuch negligence by proof which is limited to a mere description of the equipment used, neither the court … The plaintiff in error further contends that by submitting the case to the jury the court denied to it privileges and immunities guaranteed to it by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, thereby claiming immunity

Lockhart v. Loosen

943 P.2d 1074 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1997

Although this spouse's claim clearly falls within the range of statutorily abrogated civil accountability, the § 8.1 core of tort immunity is rather narrow. … But let there be no mistake about the immunity's outer limit.

Nelson v. Pollay

67 O.B.A.J. 707 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1996

OMH pressed for summary judgment on three grounds: (a) immunity from liability under the GTCA, (b) Nelson’s failure either to establish any independent negligence by OMH or its employees or (e) to comply with the' Act’s pre-suit … The final provision in § 152(5) 22 clearly takes the employee/teaching-physicians out of the scope of their employment when they are practising medicine — whether for educational or other purposes — yet leaves them within

Noble State Bank v. Haskell

22 Okla. 48 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 1909

which were inconsistent with, if not subversive of, the ends for which the corporation was established. … The insistence that the act grants special privileges and immunities is equally untenable.

First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Oklahoma Industrial Finance Authority

951 P.2d 625 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 3, 1998

] ... to be loaned, and reloaned, by said Authority only to Oklahoma incorporated industrial development agencies (whether profit or non-profit) in Oklahoma communities, which agencies shall first have been approved and qualified … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known); Butt v.

Wilson v. Gipson Ex Rel. Gipson

753 P.2d 1349 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1988

The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well established principle of common law at the time the Oklahoma Constitution was created. In Neal v. … Donahue, supra at 1129, we stated that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well established principle of common law when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc.

315 P.3d 359 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2013

Rehmer, establishe[d] that Congress has subjected the tribes to private tort actions." Id. at 1280. … The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument and found "[the Supreme Court has made clear that a suit against an Indian tribe is barred unless the tribe has clearly waived its immunity or Congress has expressly and unequivocally

State Highway Commission v. Brixey

178 Okla. 118 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1936

The right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is a public right and must not be treated as relinquished or conveyed away by inference or construction, and statutes must clearly permit the state to be sued or the … It was held the action could not be maintained due to the state’s immunity from suit.

In Re the Purchase of the Suntide Inn Motel

563 P.2d 125 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1977

Such an intention is not plainly expressed or clearly implied in reading § 1420, supra. See Davidson County v. … I believe that the legislative intent of § 1420 is clearly to subject the state and its subdivisions to municipal zoning regulations and procedures.

Smith v. Hines

261 P.3d 1129 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 7, 2011

expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the expert's determination that, based upon a review of the available medical records, facts … expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including

Newman v. STATE EX REL. BOARD OF REGENTS, ETC.

490 P.2d 1079 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1971

In the final analysis, it appears that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, at least for the more-or-less routine functions of the quasi-corporate subdivisions of the State, is so clearly against the modern trend and spirit … the Legislature has adopted an established judicial interpretation by repeated re-enactment of a statute. * * * Nor are we faced with a comprehensive legislative enactment designed to cover a field.

Shephard v. Compsource Oklahoma

209 P.3d 288 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 2009

CompSource's ratification of this decision establishes prima facie that Supervisor acted within the scope of his employment and that he is entitled to immunity from personal liability as provided in the Governmental Tort … The Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission shall promulgate rules to establish procedures for the conduct of investigations.

Griffin v. Griffin

832 P.2d 810 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1992

Appellants argue that since the language of the trust agreement is unambiguous and clearly manifests the grantor’s intent, the trial court erred by considering uncorroborated parol evidence and hearsay testimony to show that … for the marital deduction is a question to be decided under Federal tax law. 3 Nevertheless, in our interpretation of trust agreements, which is clearly a question of state law, we think it appropriate to consider the tax

Shelton v. School Board, Dist. No. 22

43 Okla. 239 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 18, 1914

Section 21 of said act provides: “On the question of issuance of said bonds no person shall be qualified to vote unless he be in all respects a qualified elector in such district. * * *” Section 27 of said act provides: “ … Impossibility is the test.’ ” And again in the same opinion: “When fraud on the part of the officers of the election is established, the poll will not be rejected, unless it prove impossible to purge it of the fraud.”

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. Baker

638 P.2d 464 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

Likewise, the constitution establishes the independence of the University and curtails legislative power over University affairs. … The determination of faculty salaries is clearly an integral part of the power to govern the University and a function essential in preserving the independence of the Board.

Estate of Bell-Levine v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

293 P.3d 964 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Title 68 0.8.2001 223(A) is clearly not such an enactment. … The Tax Commission has not alleged that it is immune from application of 68 0.$.2001 223(A).

Newman v. State ex rel. Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

490 P.2d 1079 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1971

In the final analysis, it appears that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, at least for the more-or-less routine functions of the quasi-corporate subdivisions of the State, is so clearly against the modern trend and spirit … the Legislature has adopted an established judicial interpretation by repeated re-enactment of a statute. * * * Nor are we faced with a comprehensive legislative enactment designed to cover a field.

Little v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation

938 P.2d 739 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1997

This concession establishes the first probative element required by the estoppel act. … Should that element be established on remand and the issue decided in claimant’s favor, the proof will be complete. 22 III.

Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

775 P.2d 766 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1989

The dispute between Parishioner and the Elders is clearly not immune from secular judicature and was properly before the trial court. … A church clearly is constitutionally free to exclude people without first obtaining their consent.