Case law

O'BAUGH v. Drilling Well Control, Inc.

609 P.2d 355 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 25, 1980

Their peculiar status, we held in those cases, qualified them under 85 O.S. 1971 § 44 as “another not in the same employ”. … This is apparent from our case-law which clearly affords immunity to co-employees who can never bear either primary or secondary liability for compensation.

Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation

610 P.2d 237 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1980

Clearly, the party primarily benefiting from the hospital’s operation is not the State but those private individuals treated therein, “for the private advantage of the inhabitants of the city.” … capacity and would therefore enjoy immunity under either theory.

Graves v. Bowles

135 Okla. 109 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 1929

and from an Illinois case, which authorities we consider appropriate in the instant case: “ ‘The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges or immunities … We are of the opinion, and hold, that plaintiffs are clearly entitled to the relief sought by mandamus. Feuquay v. McAlester et al., 102 Okla. 164 , 228 Pac. 487 .

Cofield v. Farrell

38 Okla. 608 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 2, 1913

Its language is prohibitory; but every prohibition implies the existence of rights and immunities, prominent among which is an immunity from inequality of legal protection, either for life, liberty, or property. … The fact that January- 1, 1866, was a date only about three years following the emancipation of the negroes does not establish that this constitutional amendment under consideration, on its face or in its necessary effect

JACKSON COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE DISTRICT v. KIRKLAND

2024 OK 4 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 2024

such immunity. … Establish uniform and sound fiscal procedures for the preparation, adoption, execution and control of budgets; 2.

Bittle v. Bahe

192 P.3d 810 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 2008

casino's application for a state mixed beverage license clearly waives tribal immunity. … is a question of law to be decided by the court under established rules that a waiver cannot be implied, it must be unequivocal, and it must be strictly construed and that nothing less than a clearly expressed waiver will

Harris Foundation, Inc. v. District Court

196 Okla. 222 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 30, 1945

Considering the situation independently of the alleged immunity of W. L. … violative than this of the policy sought to be conserved or one more clearly justifying appropriate relief from this court.

Deffenbaugh v. Hudson

791 P.2d 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 17, 1990

Whatever distinctions may be drawn between Carroll and the instant controversy, none of them warrants departure from the precedent established in that case. … We hold that under the Travelers rationale these factors are clearly insufficient for piercing the insured’s § 12 defense. D.

Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

64 O.B.A.J. 995 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1993

as passengers in a covered vehicle may not stack the uninsured motorist coverage under separate policies purchased by the owner of the involved vehicle for a noninvolved vehicle or vehicles unless those passengers also qualified … In so ruling, however, we recognized that those qualifying as insureds by reason of their status as passengers or permissive users in the covered vehicle would be entitled to recover under the UM endorsement for the vehicle

Williams v. State

678 P.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 6, 1984

While operating as an arm of the state, the hospital will continue to be protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 1 The holding in Neal stands supported by the Oklahoma Constitution and Statutes which clearly identify … Our constitution requires that the Legislature establish mental health facilities for the benefit of the people. Okla. Const. art. 21 § 1.

Griggs v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Transportation

702 P.2d 1017 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 1985

It stands for the general common-law norm that an overruling precedent is to be applied retroactively. 14 The law clearly admits of an exception to this general rule when overruling precedent is declared to be nonretroactive … either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or on an issue of first impression whose decision is not clearly foreshadowed; (2) the court must weigh the merits and demerits of applying the

Gilchrist v. OKL. EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N

94 P.3d 72 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 2004

Much like commercial speech, [18] testimony must always conform to the reality of established facts. … liability in damages for giving harmful testimony in judicial proceedings was established early in the English common law.

Richardson v. Smith

394 P.2d 480 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1964

It appears that the great weight of authority is that such privilege exists in favor of qualified persons appearing in many kinds of proceedings not strictly judicial in nature. See Annotation, 35 A.L.R.2d 1354 . … The request of the Administrator that petitioner attend the hearing fixed his connection or relation to the proceeding and established that his voluntary attendance was considered by the Administrator to be necessary or convenient

BARRIOS v. HASKELL COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY FOUTCH v. TURN KEY HEALTH

2018 OK 90 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2018

McKnight explained Oklahoma's sovereign immunity from a legal action in an Oklahoma court is based upon Oklahoma statutes, and a statute must clearly permit the state to be sued or the right to do so will not exist . 1 In … Constitution. 19 The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well-established principle of common law at the time the Oklahoma Constitution was created. 20 Limiting tort claims for damages against the State to those allowed

Brewer Ex Rel. Brewer v. Independent School District 1

64 O.B.A.J. 661 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1993

State, 672 P.2d *569 1153 (Okla.1983), had not yet erased the doctrine of judicially established sovereign immunity. … Clearly the plaintiffs cannot proceed on their theory of failure to inspect.

In Re Conservancy District No. 5, Lincoln County

471 P.2d 879 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1970

The order establishing the Conservancy District creates no liability or liens and imposes no taxes. … Only the owner of the legal title is qualified as a petitioner.

Kimery v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma

622 P.2d 1066 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1980

Appellants argue that this immunity protects one class (electric utilities) against another class (the public) without sufficient justification. The inhibition against special privileges and immunities contained in Art. … That burden was clearly set forth, however, in instruction number 1: “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence all of the material allega *1072 tions of the petition, and unless

CDR SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION

339 P.3d 848 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2014

CDR timely appealed, and COCA found that CDR's Privileges and Immunities argument was without merit because the U.S. … Supreme Court has held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, citing Monell v.

Lowe v. Monard

942 P.2d 732 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 9, 1997

If the defendant claims either qualified or absolute immunity in its answer, the court may order the plaintiff to file a detailed reply to the answer pursuant to subsection A of Section 2007 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes … That nisi prius order is clearly appealable. 12 O.S.1991 § 953. Recasting this proceeding into an original action is not necessary to dispose of the critical issue before us. ¶ 9 HARGRAVE, J., not voting.

Washington v. DEPT. OF CORRS.

915 P.2d 359 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 16, 1996

Similarly, we note that the prison officials assert that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … However, once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with facts which show that the defendant's alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly established