Case law

Anderson-Posey v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

237 F. Supp. 3d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 23, 2017

As a preliminary matter the Court must establish the proper standard of review for plaintiffs ERISA claim. … There is no evidence that plaintiff worked while on narcotics 2 or had any intention of working on narcotics, and the record indicates that plaintiff was a qualified pharmacist when not on narcotics.

United States v. Sloan

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 22, 2021

Defendant argues that Greubel was ineffective for failing to argue that the offense of conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence (ground one) and that § 2423(a) was unconstitutionally vague in light of recent Supreme … The Supreme Court has clearly established that “a lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v.

Cox v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2019

First, the court should make a preliminary finding that the expert is qualified to testify. Id. at 1232-33. … Plaintiffs are advised that they will be required to establish that the prior incident has a substantial connection to the accident at issue in this case.

Ward v. Allbaugh

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 10, 2019

Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S. … May 29, 2015) (rejecting a similar claim and noting relief is only available under § 2254 based on an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law).

Oklahoma Ex Rel. State Banking Board v. Bank of Oklahoma

409 F. Supp. 71 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1975

Although the evidence discloses some differences of opinion as to what is a branch, when a deposit is received, checks paid, and money lent, this Court after carefully weighing the testimony of many highly qualified expert … Oklahoma Attorney General’s Opinion No. 75 — 299 dated July 11, 1975, is a clearly erroneous interpretation of applicable law and of no force and effect.

Emrich Aerial Spraying LLC v. The City of Pawhuska, Pawhuska Municipal Airport Authority, and Pawhuska Municipal Airport Advisory Committee

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 23, 2025

For a statute to create an enforceable right, privilege, or immunity, it must clearly and unambiguously use “rights-creating terms” and “display an unmistakable focus on individuals like the plaintiff.” Id. … The Original Contract The City has failed to clearly show, based on the allegations in the complaint, that Emrich’s right to sue under the original contract has been extinguished

B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp.

506 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2007

However, neither statute nor common law clearly specifies whom the Court may order to abate a nuisance. Both parties rely on Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. … The EPA has been working at Tar Creek *805 for approximately 25 years, but this does not establish, by itself, a lack of due diligence by the EPA.

United States v. Hale

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 23, 2021

These are clearly substantive challenges to his sentence. … permitted to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on claims of: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish

Richie v. Sirmons

563 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2008

A federal habeas court “may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. … Nguyen clearly cannot meet this high standard.

Bethany v. Crow

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 6, 2022

Clearly established federal law Under clearly established federal law, “a State may not discriminate on the basis of race when exercising peremptory challenges against prospective jurors … Jackson provides the clearly established legal rule governing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim. Johnson v. Mullin, 505 F.3d 1128, 1134 (10th Cir. 2007).

Grass v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 7, 2021

If the claimant satisfies this burden, thus establishing a prima facie case of disability, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show at step five that the claimant retains the capacity to perform other … Under agency regulations, the ALJ’s decision must give “specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual

Telex Corp. v. International Business MacHines Corp.

367 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1973

To treat defendant’s peripheral products as immune from separate market consideration in view of the competition focused upon them would recognize an immunity in favor of IBM from the operation of the antitrust laws akin … The doctrine of “fair use” clearly is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

Richter v. Nelson

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 30, 2023

Plaintiff avers the newly obtained information from discovery establishes grounds to add previously dismissed defendants Pitts, Lowery, and Holt. Pl.’s Mot. at 2. … Plaintiff’s complaint as amended is not clearly futile because it includes additional facts that cure the deficiencies in the prior pleadings. Id. ¶ 51; see also Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

McCoy v. Independent School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

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

“Whether a duty exists is a threshold legal question for the court” and depends on 9 Exceptions to the waiver of immunity are found at Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155. … Yet— A foreseeable risk of harm alone is not enough to establish a duty of care under Oklahoma law.

Hargis v. Equinox Collection Services, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 3, 2019

Intangible harm may still qualify as “concrete,” and courts are instructed to consider both history and the judgment of Congress in determining whether a particular intangible harm constitutes injury in fact. … ZZZ’s as the “Original Creditor” constitutes a violation of § 1692g(a)(2), the failure to clearly identify “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed” poses a real risk of harm.

Phillips v. BOKF, NA

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2023

To that end, there is a rebuttable presumption of discriminatory intent when a plaintiff presents evidence that the defendant terminated qualified female employees but retained similarly situated male employees. … with Ernst, which clearly influenced his RIF recommendation.

Traditions Health, LLC v. Huffman

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 11, 2024

However, the mere fact that a parent corporation may qualify as an affiliate does not mean that the parent corporation qualifies as a third party beneficiary under Texas law. … Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 672 F.2d 1095, 1105 (2d Cir. 1982).

Burch v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 30, 2023

When the claimant has failed to establish good cause, the ALJ will “[i]ssue a decision based on the available evidence.” … Kampshaefer was qualified to offer her medical findings and opinions.

Williams v. City of Tulsa, Ok

393 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2005

Id. cmt. c (suggesting that whether the plaintiff is wearing undergarments may qualify). … The Act clearly included business entities within the definition of “person” prior to the 1986 amendment, but the 1986 amendment added the word “entity” in the civil liability section.

Williams v. Independent School District No. 5, of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 27, 2021

The school’s own sexual harassment policy indicates that those incidents could qualify as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” … with its regulations does not establish the requisite deliberate indifference”) (quoting Sanches v.