Case law

Babb v. Eagleton

616 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 5, 2007

This footnote limited Newcomb’s holding and labeled the Newcomb decision as establishing a form of “parental immunity” from suit. 6 The Heggy court further implied that such parental immunity is directly tied to a parent’ … Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that absolute immunity cannot attach to a quasi-judicial officer if his actions are “clearly and completely outside the scope of [his] jurisdiction”); Doe v.

Ciempa v. Jones

745 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 23, 2010

There is a two-part test for qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the NGE is a religion entitled to RLUIPA protection. 39 Dkt. #42, at 33.

Moody v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

879 F. Supp. 2d 1275 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 17, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Province also invokes qualified immunity. … Qualified im *1289 munity provides that in the performance of discretionary functions, government officials will not be liable for their conduct unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional

Roberts v. Champion

255 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 27, 2003

A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless a “clearly established” federal right of which a reasonable person would have known is shown to have been violated. See Hunter v. … Thus, the test for qualified immunity is two-fold: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established, and (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful? Id.

Atkins v. Lanning

415 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 28, 1976

Clearly the District Attorney and those on his staff were acting under “color of law” when, based upon their investigation, they caused an arrest warrant to be issued against the plaintiff. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Bishop v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Edmondson

447 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 16, 2006

In order to qualify for a civil union, a person must not *1247 be a party to another civil union or a marriage. See id. § 1202. … Therefore, Barton and Phillips’s legal status is clearly something more than a domestic partnership.

Hogan v. Zletz

43 F.R.D. 308 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1967

Natta et al has clearly established that the information is not otherwise available in Appendix A to the Memorandum of the Party Natta et al etc., as filed August 22, 1966. … immunity of “work product.”

Winton v. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County, Okl.

88 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 22, 2000

Sheriff Glanz’ Qualified Immunity 1267 b. The County’s Liability . 1267 2. Denial of Medical Care. 1269 a. Sheriff Glanz’ Individual Liability_ 1269 i. Sheriff Glanz ’ Qualified Immunity 1270 b. … Sheriff Glanz’ Qualified Immunity A public official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

44 F. Supp. 3d 1110 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 8, 2014

See id. at 1153. 2 Third, the Court rejected Alexander’s argument that he was entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of any clearly established constitutional right. … the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.”

Carlson v. United States Ex Rel. United States Postal Service

248 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2003

However, immunity from tort liability is only given to those employers falling within the “vertical chain of immunity,” as prescribed in 85 O.S. § 11 and defined in 85 O.S. § 12, i.e., who are either the immediate employer … under Murphy , despite the fact that USPS clearly meets all three parts of the Bradley test.

Gooding v. Ketcher

838 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 19, 2012

Cnty. of Price, 834 F.Supp. 305, 309 (W.D.Wisc.1993) (noting that “[i]n light of [Johnson ], ... it was clearly established as a matter of constitutional law that persons using the American flag to express political opinions … Winsness and Koser discussed Johnson and Eichman in the context of whether defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Wittenberg v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority

781 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 16, 2011

Although quasi-judicial or prosecutorial functions are protected by absolute immunity, investigative or administrative functions receive only qualified immunity. Id. at 1190, 1193 ; see also Becker v. … In considering the peer review committee’s entitlement to absolute immunity, the Tenth Circuit followed the test established in Cleavinger. Id. at 1317.

Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham

609 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 24, 2009

The Court accordingly finds that Crowe’s suit is not defeated by judicial immunity, as it clearly seeks “prospective injunctive relief.” See Pulliam, 466 U.S. at 541 — 42, 104 S.Ct. 1970 . 3 2. … Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Cmty., 991 F.2d 458 , 460 (8th Cir.1993) (“The protection of sovereign immunity is subject to the well established exception described in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 , 28 S.Ct

Falvo v. Owasso Independent School District No. I-011

146 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1999

In the alternative, defendants have argued that they are entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. The Court disagrees. … Because the rights of privacy under FERPA and the Fourteenth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mick v.

Warner

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 21, 2026

Absent such authority, the right is not “clearly established.” Therefore, Detective Hall is entitled to qualified immunity[.] … rights were clearly established at the time.”

Revilla v. Glanz

8 F. Supp. 3d 1336 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2014

The unavailability of qualified immunity for these employees is a deterrent against such conduct, but respondeat superior liability for the [private] employer itself is likely to be more effective at deterring such actions … Thus, the Healthcare Defendants argue that they are immune from suit under Okla.

White v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Tulsa County Office of District Attorney

250 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2002

, to address the issue of qualified immunity. … By contrast, "[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Id.

Cherokee Nation v. Nash

724 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2010

As explained above, a second-filed court may defer to the first-filed court to determine whether the second action qualifies for any “exceptions” to the first to file rule, see supra Part II.B, and the Court finds it proper … functions as a waiver of immunity in the D.C.

Birchfield v. Mulkey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2025

Additionally, plaintiff responds that Tipton is not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Tipton violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Id. … Thus, general statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.

Banks v. Gonzales

415 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 14, 2006

The 2004 Amendments eliminate the previous two lists of qualifying federal offenses and provide as follows: (d) Qualifying Federal offenses The offenses that shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal … See, e.g., Kincade, 379 F.3d at 837 (reasoning that “the DNA profile derived from the defendant’s blood sample establishes only a record of the defendant’s identity” and that “ ‘once a person is convicted of [a qualifying