Case law

Byrd v. Independent School District No. 8 of Tulsa County Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Bickford v. Hensley

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 20, 2019

Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Hensley’s actions were illicit under clearly established law and Defendant Hensley is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Delaney v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 11, 2025

"[A] defendant's assertion of qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 results in a presumption of immunity." Est. of Taylor v. … Here, Plaintiff has provided such clearly established precedent.

Atchison v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 25, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officers “‘from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gutierrez vy. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plain- tiff must show that (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time

Brown v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 21, 2023

Plaintiff, conversely, argues that Defendant Jordan violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights and therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Doc. 18. … prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not satisfied, and Defendant Jordan is entitled to qualified immunity.

Scott v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 4, 2022

Further, all defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff meets the second element, the clearly established prong, “when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows that the right

Atchison v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 7, 2022

Further, all defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … A plaintiff meets the second element, the clearly established prong, “when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts show that the right

First v. Hockett

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.”

Turlington v. Connor

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 21, 2021

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Savage v. Dobbertin

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2024

qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mayfield v.

Allison v. American Airlines, Inc.

112 F. Supp. 37 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1953

Parish the court said; 2 “ * * * However, counsel for Myers contends that Myers is immune from any personal liability for inducing the corporation to breach the contract by the mere fact that he was at the time an officer … It appears to the court that clearly two distinct causes of action are pleaded here and that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 (c) which deals with the removability of separable causes of action, this case has been properly removed

Dodson v. Reed

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2021

Qualified Immunity Eastwood also argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Dodson’s unlawful strip search claim. … Law enforcement officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

Buttler v. City of Sperry

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 8, 2023

established at that time for purposes of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields an official as long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established law that “a reasonable person would have known.” See Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 11 (citation omitted).

Holland v. Glanz

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2019

In a § 1983 action, an official sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless he both violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly established. Cox v. … Glanz supports his argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity by arguing that there is no clearly established right to be screened for suicidal tendencies. (Doc. 15 at 5-7).

Dodson v. Reed

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity Eastwood also argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Dodson’s unlawful strip search claim. … Law enforcement officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

Buck v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 25, 2023

the violation was clearly established. … Parker and Rhoades seek qualified immunity from plaintiff's § 1983 claims, and the law is clear that a police officer making a warrantless arrest is entitled to qualified immunity if he “reasonably but mistakenly” concludes

Campbell v. Independent School District No. 33 of Creek County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2024

Bilby moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that (1) Campbell has not established a constitutional violation, much less one committed by him; (2) he is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) the claims against … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors “from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Gutierrez v.

Young v. Glanz

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 14, 2020

immunity analysis, Glanz’s qualified immunity argument is premised upon his argument that the evidence is not sufficient to show that any subordinate violated Ms. … In any event, the Court has previously conducted the qualified immunity / clearly established law analysis on nearly identical evidence that a jury could find constituted deliberate indifference by Sheriff Glanz to Jail

Ellis v. Grimes

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2022

Horn argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. Horn Br. at 14–17. Plaintiffs have shown a clearly established constitutional right to adequate medical care for a serious medical need. See Resp. … right was clearly established.

Carter v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2019

Underwood is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to Bradley’s § 1983 claims.11 B. … the “clearly established law” step of the qualified immunity analysis.