Case law

JB v. ASARCO, Inc.

225 F.R.D. 258 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 2, 2004

Clearly, any material in the files of Wasserstein, Forrest and Snodgrass that relates to the seven remaining Plaintiffs, must be produced. … Establishing the relevance of non-party information involves a balancing of the interests of the parties and public policy.

Hanover Insurance v. Honeywell, Inc.

200 F. Supp. 2d 1305 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 24, 2002

Standard For Summary Judgment Motions for summary judgment should be granted if the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter … However, “[a] co-insured is immune from liability on .an insurer’s subrogation claim.” . Travelers Ins. Cos. v. Dickey, 799 P.2d 625, 627 (Okla.1990). In Sutton v.

Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Carselowey

40 F.2d 540 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 1930

Clearly, eoal underlying land is a part of it, and, as such, is taxable as real estate. … Complainant has submitted authorities in contending that it is not engaged in business in Oklahoma, but in my opinion none establishes that contention.

O'Rourke v. Tulsa County

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 6, 2019

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (“[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”); Ysais v. New Mexico, 373 F. … Nor does it clearly appear to seek prospective injunctive relief.

Neuendorf

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 2, 2026

They also argue that even if plaintiff states a valid claim on any of the alleged counts, the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity and are statutorily immune from suit in their official capacities for the … With respect to plaintiff’s claim arising under § 1983 claim (claim one), the defendant officers invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity and assert that plaintiff has failed to meet her burden on 2 The defendant officers

Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Texaco, Inc.

208 F.R.D. 329 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 15, 2002

Such testimony could not qualify as evidence; and to use it for impeachment or corroborative purposes would make the attorney much less an officer of the court and much more an ordinary witness. … Clearly, the documents which Plaintiff produced to Defendant contain some attorney work product documents.

United States v. Fennell

553 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 15, 2008

His prior qualifying felony convictions include: (1) Possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute on December 3, 1997, in Case No. … The transcript of the plea hearing before the magistrate clearly establishes that Fennell was informed of the maximum sentence he could receive under the plea agreement.

Cox v. State of Oklahoma, The

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2020

However, the Court will consider one claim that plaintiff would likely assert against DHS, but which would clearly be subject to dismissal. … The law is clearly established that states have Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit unless this immunity is abrogated by Congress, and the Supreme Court has determined that § 1983 does not waive a state’s immunity from

Mills v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 27, 2024

immunity context. … But the analysis of qualified immunity is based on specific facts, not abstract principles.”) 10 in March 2022, reporting discriminatory treatment he and other African American

Goulsby v. Dowling

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 23, 2022

immunity as to any individual-capacity claims asserted against them. … of constitutional harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind required to establish the alleged constitutional deprivation.”

Hurley v. United States

10 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 14, 1935

Bender, but the court overlooked entirely the qualifying words “in place” twice used in that opinion. … Clearly in this case, too, no taxable gain arose, and it is not intimated that any taxable gain was returned by the associates.

Plunkett v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2022

According to Defendants, Plaintiff cannot establish that the medical staff intentionally disregarded Mr. … It is not yet clear whether their alleged conduct best qualifies as medical malpractice or deliberate indifference—an exceedingly difficult line to draw in the first place.

Hall

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2026

Marston base their arguments for immunity in Okla- homa law. Insofar as the Court finds that they are not immune from Ms. Hall’s claims under Oklahoma law, Ms. … Ok- lahoma law cannot grant immunity from a federal statute, so even if Ms. Mullins and Mr. Marston were immune under Oklahoma law, that immunity would not stretch to Ms.

Tulsa County Public Health Nursing Service, Inc. v. Tulsa City-County Health Department

475 F. Supp. 152 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 30, 1979

First National Bank (1936) 299 U.S. 109 , 57 S.Ct. 96, 98 , 81 L.Ed. 70 at 114 , quoted this language with approval and said: “Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established … is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’”

Millsap v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

162 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 5, 2001

Again, this testimony is not consistent with the hierarchical culture at MDC, which culture was clearly established at trial by Defendant’s own witnesses. 246. … CONCLUSION The record in this case clearly establishes liability by Defendant to Plaintiffs.

In Re Williams Companies ERISA Litigation

271 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 14, 2003

Consistent with this objective, the Plan’s first Article states that it “shall constitute a qualified employee stock ownership plan designed to invest primarily in qualifying employer securities ....” … This claim also must fail since Williams clearly was not charged with this responsibility under the Plan documents.

Horton v. Bank of America, N.A.

189 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 18, 2016

In response, the Hortons submit that they have alleged facts constituting fraud and that those facts are “clearly distinct” from their breach-of-contract claim. … “Unfair trade practice” means any practice which offends established public policy or if the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers; Id. § 752.

Johnson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 22, 2019

After reviewing state law, the court concluded that this immunity was not absolute. Id. at *8–9. … In short, Oklahoma’s public policy does not clearly prohibit an insured party from pursuing a claim for IIED against an insurance adjuster, and State Farm has not shown that Mr. Johnson and Ms.

RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter)

177 B.R. 951 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1994

than McKinney’s is not clearly erroneous. … Rather than jettison the doctrine of economic duress established by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Centric, the court concludes that it should be applied to this case.

Loveless Mfg. Co. v. Roadway Exp., Inc.

104 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 5, 1952

Roadway relies upon the tariff to establish as a fact that its employees were the agents of Loveless. The case of Columbus & Greenville Railway Co. v. … This is precisely and clearly stated in the case of Ramsey v. New York Central Railroad Company, 269 N.Y. 219 , 199 N.E. 65, 67 , 102 A.L.R. 511, 513, 514 , where a similar tariff was involved.