Case law

Curry v. Streater

213 P.3d 550 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 2009

DEFENDANTS THREATENING DEMEANOR IS ESTABLISHED BY CRYSTAL-CLEAR PROOF. T8 The defendant was doubtless angered by his cousin's decision not to be in attendance at graveside service. … NO IMMUNITY APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANTS DEMEANOR. 19 The defendant is a police officer with seven years of experience.

Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Management, District No. 1, Logan County v. City of Guthrie

253 P.3d 38 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 2010

No analysis was given as to which entity, be it the Oklahoma Legislature or Congress, authorized the qualified right. … Congress clearly acted within its powers." Id. at 1215. 12 .

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.

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.

Hawks v. Walsh

177 Okla. 564 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1936

The right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is a pub’ic 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.

ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK

2017 OK 7 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 24, 2017

Generally, a statute or its amendments will have only prospective effect unless it clearly provides otherwise. Id. … immunity). 23 See, e.g., Cole v.

Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola

230 P.3d 488 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2009

or the Indian tribe has clearly consented to suit in state court or otherwise clearly waived tribal immunity. … [and that] the Tribe explicitly waives its immunity from suit.”

Carney v. Moore

754 P.2d 863 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1988

“[W]hen cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life. … The Indian child’s tribe may establish a different order of preference by resolution. 25 U.S.C. § 1915 (c).

Levine v. Teal

193 Okla. 495 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1944

On appeal defendants contend that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and clearly against the weight of the evidence. … It is a well-established rule that in such cases we will not reverse on conflicting evidence.

CONNER v. STATE

2025 OK 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 2025

The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Thus, 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 prison, jail or correctional

State Ex Rel. Dabney v. Ledbetter

156 Okla. 23 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 22, 1932

filed a petition praying for an order of this court directing the clerk of this court to enroll his name among the regular practicing lawyers of the state courts and that he may be accorded all the rights, privileges, and immunities … , and we shall likewise refuse to reinstate any one who is not so qualified.

Gulley v. Territory of Oklahoma

19 Okla. 187 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1907

Hence the court clearly had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. But it is contended that the action should be instituted by the territorial board of health, or some member thereof. … or unqualified, into a doctor of medicine, armed with a diploma and degree as one qualified to heal the sick, who may answer its prescribed list of questions and pay its prescribed fee.

Karlson v. City of Oklahoma City

711 P.2d 72 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 28, 1985

from suit beyond the maximum amount established by the statute. … from suit and immunity from legal responsibility (liability), see comments in Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 116 [1964], quoted in Hooper v.

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC

212 P.3d 447 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 2009

In 2001, it established the Tribal Court Assistance Program designed to establish, improve, and expand the functionality of the tribal court system. … The tribe shall not be deemed to have waived its sovereign immunity from suit with respect to such claims by establishing such procedures or by any provision of this Compact, but agrees not to assert such immunity as provided

JOHN v. SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL

2017 OK 81 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 2017

And, here, the class defining language is "actions requiring . . . a qualified expert . . . to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach of duty resulted in harm." 19.1(A). … 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

HUNSUCKER v. FALLIN

408 P.3d 599 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2017

Art. 5 § 22, but is based solely on petitioners’- claim the legislation violates a provision of the State Constitution. ¶ 12 Senator Mike Schulz and Representative Charles McCall clearly possess immunity from the legal liability … A bill does not become law when a Governor creates an impermissible pocket veto of a substantive (non-appropriations) bill by giving a partial or qualified approval of the bill. Johnson v.

Frazier v. Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority

775 P.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 16, 1989

The trial court expressly found that 1) ap-pellee, Bryan Memorial Hospital Authority [Authority], 14 qualifies as a political subdivision according to the terms of 51 O.S. 1981 § 152(6)(d), 15 2) before filing his lawsuit … Hospital’s May 22 dismissal from the case clearly was not intended to be a terminal action against the defendants comprised within this appellation.

Oklahoma City v. Taylor

470 P.2d 325 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 21, 1970

Symes, Okl., 394 P.2d 493 , we held: "In an action for personal injuries a verdict will not be set aside for excessiveness of damages unless it clearly appears that the jury committed some gross and palpable error, or acted … It seems reasonable to me to reconsider and re-evaluate the doctrine of governmental immunity for a municipality, established in 1788 in Russell v.

Gilchrist v. Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

75 O.B.A.J. 1765 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 2004

Much like commercial speech, 18 testimony must always conform to the reality of established facts. … The immunity of parties and witnesses from liability in damages for giving harmful testimony in judicial proceedings was established early in the English common law. See Briscoe v.

State Ex Rel. State Board of Public Affairs v. Principal Funding Corp.

519 P.2d 503 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1974

Where the evidence is insufficient to establish a clear legal right to the writ of mandamus, denial thereof is proper. … This case poignantly demonstrates the reasons the doctrine of governmental immunity should be overthrown and forgotten. Nineteen states have now discarded the shield of governmental immunity.