Case law

Morales v. CITY OF OKL. CITY EX REL. OKL. CITY POLICE DEPT.

230 P.3d 869 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 2010

City of Oklahoma City, 21 in which we said, *876 “To construe § 155(4) as providing blanket immunity to political subdivisions for any claim arising from law enforcement would not conform to established precedent. … This much stands clearly recognized in the state’s criminal law.

Jackson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.

64 O.B.A.J. 3587 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1993

The Hospital was clearly within the Act’s protection when its personnel escorted the visitor out of the surgery area, seated him on the bed in the hallway, and then redirected their attention to the wife. … The Hospital was clearly responding to an apparent emergency that called for immediate action. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION IS VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

McLin v. Trimble

61 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1990

The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The petitioners are immune from suit unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra.

Ada Electric Cars, LLC v. Kemp

294 P.3d 448 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established … advertising that its vehicles qualified. %8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.

415 P.3d 521 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 2018

did not clearly and explicitly provide. … Subsection 5(A) imposes no other burden or condition on Penske Truck Leasing to establish and to enforce its immunity. This is the answer I would give to 10th Circuit's certified question.

Board of County Commissioners v. Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma Self-Insurance Group

339 P.3d 866 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2014

Although it clearly insures, ACCO-SIG is not subject to the general rules of liability imposed on all insurers. III. IS ACCO-SIG PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT? … principle behind the concept of sovereign immunity, which is "the inherent right of the sovereign to be immune from private suit."

Wright v. Grove Sun Newspaper Co., Inc.

873 P.2d 983 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 1994

bar” of restraint. 31 The facts before us clearly establish that the district attorney called a news conference open to the public, whose subject was the conduct of a drug investigation by his office — a matter of general … For further discussion of the distinctions between absolute and qualified privilege/immunity, see Forrester v.

CHIMENTO v. GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES

2023 OK 22 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2023

Section 363(B) provides qualified immunity from civil actions for individuals who furnish information to the OID regarding fraudulent insurance activity. … Additionally, Kirschstein did not involve an applicable statute, like § 363, establishing qualified immunity for statements made to the relevant administrative agency, nor were we bound in that case by a prior decision from

McGaha v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

691 P.2d 895 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1984

immunity. … unless the intention to do so is clearly *898 expressed. 6 Clearly, sovereign immunity continues to shield the Board of Regents.

FLORETTA FRANKLIN, as mother and next of kin to LATOYA PERRY v. OU MEDICINE

2025 OK 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 2025

Since Congress established exclusive jurisdiction for these claims, Oklahoma district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction. See Mills v. … if they qualify as "covered persons" under the PREP Act.

Ruth v. Oklahoma City

143 Okla. 62 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1930

Does the ordinance contain but one subject, and is it clearly expressed in the title? … This section clearly provides that the city shall not only have the powers specifically granted in the charter, but that it shall have such other additional powers, rights, privileges, franchises, and immunities as are granted

State Ex Rel. Whetsel v. Wood

207 Okla. 193 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1952

powers to the Oklahoma Board of Examiners in Watchmaking and gives such Board unlimited powers to permit a certain class to engage in watchmaking, to the exclusion of others, thus giving such Board legislative powers to establish … The Watchmaking Act clearly prohibits one who may be fully qualified by years of training and experience from following his chosen craft and forces him to seek some other work or trade, thus depriving him of the fruits of

State Ex Rel. Edmondson v. Native Wholesale Supply

237 P.3d 199 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2010

immunity. … We see no support for such an interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, whose decisions clearly establish that the Indian Commerce Clause does not "of its own force

ANAYA-SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

2024 OK 34 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 14, 2024

More specifically, it argues that Anaya-Smith has not established that the employer-owned vehicle was an "uninsured motor vehicle" as required for UM coverage to be applicable. … CONCLUSION ¶ 33 We find that under Oklahoma law, a tortfeasor immune from suit due to the exclusive remedy provisions of 85A O.S.Supp.2019, § 5, is an uninsured motorist as a matter of law, and the accident vehicle qualifies

Gomes v. Hameed

184 P.3d 479 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 2008

Hameed is protected by statutory immunity, Dr. Holter does not qualify for such immunity. As stated earlier, the Good Samaritan Immunity Act is based on three factors. Unlike Dr. Hameed, Dr. … Holter does not qualify for immunity.

BD. OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS v. ASSOC. OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS OF OKLA. SELF-INSUR. GROUP

2014 OK 87 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2014

Although it clearly insures, ACCO-SIG is not subject to the general rules of liability imposed on all insurers. III. IS ACCO-SIG PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT? … Such an entity shall be eligible to qualify for and hold a certificate of authority to transact insurance in this state."