Case law

Barnes v. United States

104 F. Supp. 3d 1285 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2015

“[A]n employing [governmental entity] is immune as a matter of law only if an officer’s acts are so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority the officer does not rightfully possess.” … However, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for employee conduct like McFadden’s, which involved premeditated, unlawful conduct that was “so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority

Fields v. City of Tulsa

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

Qualified immunity shields public officials from facing the burdens of litigation and is an immunity from suit, not simply a defense to a plaintiff’s claims. Serna v. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bostic v. City of Jenks

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 9, 2020

rights were clearly established. … Plaintiff’s entire argument as the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is that investigative detentions constitute the seizure of a person under the Fourth Amendment and it is clearly established that an investigative

City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

258 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 14, 2003

There are clearly genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment on the nature of the relationship between George’s and its growers. (Dkt. # 229). … Arkansas law clearly excepts intentional torts from the municipal immunity statute. In Deitsch v.

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.

Walbridge v. City of Oilton, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 30, 2025

Bond, 595 U.S. 9, 12 (2021) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … "To survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show—when taken as true—the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established

Bruner v. United States

340 F. Supp. 2d 1204 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 16, 2004

The Creeks, at the time of the establishment of the United States Government, inhabited a territory in the southeastern United States. 2. … The Court indicated that immunity was removed from the Indians, and declined to infer immunity “from mere congressional silence.” Id. at 366-67 , 69 S.Ct. 561 . Squire v.

Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc.

964 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 19, 1997

that the Plaintiff was neither disabled as defined under the ADA, nor qualified for an employment position as a grinder. … Similarly, the purpose statement of the ADA clearly indicates that the ADA was intended to prevent discrimination against individuals *319 who are disabled, or who suffer discrimination because they are perceived as disabled

Porter v. Crow

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 10, 2020

were clearly established at the time of violation.” … And because “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,’” the Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level

Crocker v. Regalado

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2019

Constitutional Claim Against Regalado and BOCC Glanz moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. … In denying Glanz’s Motion to Dismiss, the court determined that Glanz had failed to “argue that the alleged violation of Grant’s constitutional rights was not clearly established,” and therefore “focuse[d] [its analysis

Barre v. Ramsey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 3, 2022

was clearly established.” … The Court need not, and does not, reach the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis. 4.

Slinkard v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2025

No. 23-cv-354 Qualified immunity shields public officials “ʻfrom damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gutierrez v. … Once a defendant asserts qual- ified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defend- ant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Morris v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2020

The individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, because Morris cannot show that his constitutional rights were violated or that his rights were clearly established when the incident giving rise … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 6, 2000

Farrar does not qualify as an expert to testify as to the causation of *1315 Plaintiffs ailments. Dr. … There are two exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma — mass immunizations and situations where the FDA has mandated that warning be given directly to the consumer — neither of which is applicable here

Taylor v. James Thomas

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 4, 2020

Because Thomas raises a qualified immunity defense, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) that [Thomas] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time … [the court] proceed[s] no further on the qualified immunity issue.”). B.

Springer v. United States

447 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 21, 2006

immunity bars plaintiffs claims. … Plaintiffs complaint does not qualify for the judicial exception to the AIA because defendants are likely to succeed on the merits.

United States ex rel. Lancaster v. Boeing Co.

778 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2011

Sub-line item 4010AG was established to cover acquisition of AOG emergency parts. … Here, the record clearly establishes that while allegations concerning the repairs of the fire-damaged aircraft prompted the 1992 investigation, the investigation itself examined the requirements of the CLS contract and revealed

Tax & Accounting Software Corp. v. United States

111 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 31, 2000

To survive a motion for summary judgment, nonmovant “must establish that there is a genuine issue of material facts ...” … The highly structured definition of research which is proffered by the IRS in its regulations makes it virtually impossible for commercial research to qualify for the § 41 credit, which was clearly not the intention of Congress

Bailey v. Sheriff of Ottawa County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 17, 2021

Plaintiff also argues that private employees employed as medical professionals in a prison medical clinic are not entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity,” and such private employees may not raise a defense of qualified immunity to a § 1983 claim asserting that the medical professional was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s need for medical treatment.

Caballero

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2026

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue that because, as a matter of law, probable cause has been actually determined to have existed at the time of the arrest, defendants are “entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability, which they are entitled to “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged