Case law

Board of County Com'rs v. Good Twp.

188 Okla. 151 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 12, 1940

It is insisted that the investment of the county’s sinking fund in the bonds in question was clearly a public right or duty as distinguished from a mere so-called private right, thus saving said county from the operation … County and municipal treasurers are enjoined, at their peril, to invest such fund when not needed presently for the retirement of the bonds for the payment of which the fund was established. Section 5917, O.

WELLS v. OKLAHOMA ROOFING & SHEET METAL

2019 OK 45 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2019

Because Oklahoma's workers' compensation laws clearly underscore and contemplate the accidental character of a workplace injury, an employer's immunity, then, cannot be stretched to include the employer's intentional acts … project, but this immunity shall not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications. 2 Adams v.

RULES OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS

2015 OK 2 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2015

Provisional status, or a similar credential from another state court which, in the discretion of the Board, establishes the candidate is qualified for provisional status in Oklahoma, or iii. … Rule 24, Immunity Cited Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite Name Level None Found.

North Side State Bank v. Board of County Commissioners

65 O.B.A.J. 1195 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1994

Summary judgment materials of record clearly and conclusively establish that, at the time of the critical voucher’s issuance, the Court Clerk did not stand vis-a-vis the Board in an agent/principal relationship. … Fitzsimmons, - U.S. -,-, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2615-16 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993) (for a qualified immunity of the prosecutor). 17 . McCracken, supra note 14 , 648 P.2d at 20 ; Allen, infra note 20, 769 P.2d at 1309 . 18 .

In Re Oklahoma Development Finance Authority

89 P.3d 1075 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 3, 2004

Supp.2002 § 3654(M) 6 . *1080 Section 3660 of the Act provides that if the establishment should cease to qualify for an incentive payment and if the withholding tax collections from the establishment are not sufficient to … The Act requires adequate consideration and accountability from the qualifying establishments in exchange for the expenditure of public funds.

Unah by and Through Unah v. Martin

676 P.2d 1366 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 21, 1984

The doctrine established in this triology of cases became popular to protect not only the interests of the family, but likewise where liability insurance was available, to protect the insurer against collusive actions between … We hereby qualify the rule of parental immunity in this jurisdiction to allow an action for negligence arising from an automobile accident brought on behalf of an unemancipated minor child against a parent to the extent of

SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATER

328 P.3d 1192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 20, 2014

If any set of facts can be established which is consistent with the allegations, a motion to dismiss should be denied. … In summation: Exemptions 4, 5, and 6, when read together with this Court's explanations, define clearly the scope of statutory immunity concerning law enforcement.

ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.

2018 OK 23 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 2018

Again, the Legislature clearly and specifically addressed the scope of the exclusive remedy/immunity rule and an exception therefrom. ¶7 The statutory language addressing the exclusive remedy rule and immunity provided by … not clearly and explicitly provide.

German-American Ins. Co. v. Huntley

62 Okla. 39 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1916

In actions for libel and slander the doctrine of qualified privilege has been recognized and established in this jurisdiction by the following cases: Tuohy v. Halsell, 35 Okla. 61 , 128 Pac. 126 , 43 L. R. A. (N. … In neither of the foregoing instructions, nor elsewhere in the charge, did the court submit to the jury the single defense of qualified privilege which was clearly -an issue and concerning which the testimony was conflicting

Henry v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

478 P.2d 898 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1970

The opinion states: “This clearly establishes that the turnpike project is the property of the State of Oklahoma.” … Therein we said: “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 States

Hooper v. Clinkingbeard

64 O.B.A.J. 813 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1993

The determination of legislative intent controls judicial statutory interpretation. 16 However, it is unnecessary to apply rules of construction to discern Legislative intent if the will is clearly expressed. 17 Pursuant … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa

74 O.B.A.J. 954 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2003

The state action immunity doctrine will protect a municipality’s anti-competitive conduct from federal antitrust liability only where 1) there is a clearly expressed state policy to displace competition with municipal regulation … state itself, the Act clearly expresses a legislative intent to subject municipalities to its proscriptive reach.

McCathern v. City of Oklahoma City

75 O.B.A.J. 1914 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2004

§ 155(13) text do not explicitly fashion greater defenses against premises liability claims than those which stand established by the common law. … If the common law is to be abrogated or modified, it must be done by creation of clearly expressed legislative immunity, not by the court’s fiat.

Sargent v. Central National Bank & Trust Co. of Enid

62 O.B.A.J. 872 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1991

The Bank’s immunity from contractual liability hence depends upon whether § 24(Fifth) avails as a defense to the claim’s theory invoked. … WAS THE BANK ENTITLED TO § 24(FIFTH) IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW? A.

Nail v. City of Henryetta

67 O.B.A.J. 525 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 6, 1996

Clearly, the officer was acting within the scope of his employment when he arrested Nail and took him to jail. Although the officer denied that he shoved Nail during the arrest, the City does not dispute it. … Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought to be established.

Yarbrough v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

200 Okla. 402 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1947

Wardship with limited power over his property’ did not there ‘without more render (the Indian) immune from the common burden.’ … United States, above, in referring to earlier federal court decisions establishing and extending tax immunity in favor of the Indian and his privies: “None of these eases held, nor has this court ever decided, that congressional

Anderson v. O'DONOGHUE

677 P.2d 648 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1983

The three legs of this proposition are: First, the previously quoted 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (f) is not an exception to the immunity established by section (a). … The statute clearly makes the federal government the defendant real party in interest. Contrarily, § 1089(f) speaks of individuals, using the word person.

McCracken v. City of Lawton

648 P.2d 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1982

Businesses affected by the new ordinance — entertainment and service-related establishments — were to be severely restricted in their capacity to use land for the affected activities. … An affirmance of the allowance would clearly contravene the unequivocal grant of immunity statutorily conferred in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1981 § 155(1) 1 .

LARRY AUSTBO, Surviving Spouse of MARILYN AUSTBO v. GREENBRIAR

2025 OK 85 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 2025

de novo review, we hold that Defendants have failed to establish that they are immune. … Thus, Defendants cannot establish PREP Act immunity at the summary judgment stage .

Canary v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

295 P.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 20, 1956

Clearly, only the income tax may be considered as an excise tax. … While this case is applicable only by analogy, yet it shows clearly that “The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.”