Case law

Rural Water District 3 v. Owasso Utilities Authority

530 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 3, 1979

This is undoubtedly due to Article 5, § 51, Oklahoma Constitution, which prohibits the granting of “exclusive rights, privileges or immunities” by the Legislature. … In this case, in its dealings with Hilliary, the City was clearly acting in a proprietary, and not a governmental, capacity. Comanche County, supra, at 492.

Murphy v. Spring

58 F. Supp. 3d 1241 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2014

or statutory-rights; and (2) the infringed right at issue was clearly established at the time of Ballard’s allegedly unlawful activity, such that a reasonable public official would have known that his challenged conduct … Thus, the analyses are not identical. , Unlike Ballard, Spring and Wheeler did not couch their arguments in terms of qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court did not conduct a qualified immunity analysis. .

Richardson v. Malone

762 F. Supp. 1463 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1991

There are numerous Supreme Court decisions establishing federal common law where the Congressional statutory scheme is incomplete. See, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. … This would clearly not be the result if Plaintiff did not claim a security interest in the personal property located within Indian territory.

Ibarra v. Lee

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2022

Then, the plaintiff must show that the constitutional rights the defendant allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue. Id. … CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Deputy Lee is entitled to qualified immunity.

Wirtz v. Regalado

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

Herman further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Wirtz fails to show a constitutional violation. Id. at 9-10. … immunity.

Oklahoma Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics v. Fogarty

205 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2002

There are exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but plaintiffs rely instead on the doctrine set forth in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). … B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 To establish a claim under section 1983, plaintiffs must plead and prove that defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived plaintiffs of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution

Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder

962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 14, 2014

Unlike with Part B, the Bishop couple has clearly demonstrated Smith’s connection to their injury. … Morrow, 92 Fed.Appx. 663, 665 (10th Cir.2004) (explaining that court clerk of Butler County, Kansas sued in her official capacity had quasi-judicial immunity from suits for money damages but “would not be entitled to immunity

Young v. Glanz

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2020

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 … Brown suffered and ultimately died following a delay in emergency medical treatment, the law was clearly established that a Jail official like Mr.

Bigheart Pipeline Corp. v. United States

600 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 18, 1984

To qualify as a protected “purchaser” under § 6323, a third party who acquires an interest in property of the taxpayer must be protected against subsequent purchasers without actual notice under local law. § 6323(h)(6). … The Court believes under § 6321 and applicable case law, a federal tax lien clearly may attach to a contingent interest.

Sooner State News Agency, Inc. v. Fallis

367 F. Supp. 523 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1973

We do not, however, feel that the plaintiffs have established such a claim here. … “No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts.

Marsh v. Terra International (Oklahoma), Inc.

122 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 9, 2015

Martineau’s records establish that Marsh has two relevant physical impairments — the back and knee injuries. … Clearly, Marsh could perform the essential functions of the job as it existed prior to the increased production requirements.

Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

262 F.R.D. 617 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2009

Accordingly, a party seeking work product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3) must establish that the materials are (1) “documents and tangible things;” 8 (2) “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial;” (3) “by or for … (Selection process can create opinion work product even though the documents themselves do not qualify for work product protection.)

Cowen v. Walgreens Co.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 13, 2022

Indeed, “it is well established that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle … Because Plaintiffs claims flow directly from the administration of a qualified countermeasure, there is no plausible way that amendment would alter the outcome.

World Pub. Co. v. Davis

16 F.2d 130 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1926

Ault Case, supra, wherein it was held that the government was to operate the carriers, by virtue of the Federal Control Act, but the usual immunity of the sovereign from legal liability was not to prevent the enforcement … There have been other pleadings filed by the defendant, and I am clearly of the opinion that the defendant has made general appearances in each of the eases, and that this final contention is without merit.

In re Home-Stake Production Co. Securities Litigation

76 F.R.D. 337 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 6, 1975

Some significant allegations of plaintiffs are now admitted or otherwise established facts. … Clearly, the purpose of the Securities Act of 1933 was to protect investors from those who would defraud them.

Thomas v. Four Seasons Nursing Centers, Inc.

206 F.R.D. 294 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 5, 2002

If § 2503 is alone applicable, then it causes a qualified waiver of any physician-patient privilege which Mr. Kannady might have held. Pursuant to this qualified waiver, *297 Defendants may not talk ex parte with Mr. … As with hospitals and nursing facilities, the Oklahoma Legislature has clearly delineated between the practice of the healing arts and the practice of nursing.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 798 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen

646 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1986

The framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … For *325 each of these years, members clearly understood blacks and females were not allowed to be members nor recruited for membership.

Goff

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 2026

The Court determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit, and plaintiff failed to allege any facts suggesting that an official policy or custom of the City caused a violation of her … Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint to provide additional details about her claims, but her complaint, responses to the motions to dismiss, and motion to reconsider have clearly set out her legal claims

Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC

212 F. Supp. 3d 1106 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 11, 2016

The standards adopted clearly apply to the labeling that should accompany obsolete motor oils. [See Dkt. # 12-2, pp. 41-42 (“2.33.1.3.2. Inactive or Obsolete Service Categories. … [Dkt. # 17, p. 11], This is not enough to qualify Sisemore as an “aggrieved consumer” under the OCPA, and his OCPA claim must be dismissed.

Mantooth v. AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan Number 1

804 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 13, 2011

become qualified based on education, training, or experience. … As a preliminary matter the Court must establish the proper standard of review for plaintiffs ERISA claim.