Case law

Wilson v. IC Bus of Oklahoma, LLC

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 5, 2021

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he is within the protected age group; (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that he was qualified for the position; … The mixed-motive analysis established in Price Waterhouse v.

United States v. Williams

532 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2008

Williams qualifies for “Career Offender” status under federal law. See, 21 U.S.C. § 851 (a)(1), and United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1. … Congress established the seriousness of the offense charged by the enactment of § 851 which mandates a life sentence for those defendants classified as career felons.

Sleepy Lagoon, Ltd. v. Tower Group, Inc.

809 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 19, 2011

Orlux Distribution, Inc., 428 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir.2005), for the proposition that “[c]ompanies conducting business through their subsidiaries can qualify as transacting business in a state, provided the parent exercises sufficient … The 2010 Annual Report clearly states that “we” or other collective pronouns refer to defendant and its subsidiaries, and nothing in the 2010 Annual Report contradicts Lee’s declaration that Tower does not directly conduct

Hendershot v. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits of Oklahoma, LLLP

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 9, 2021

Distributors that did not qualify as residents of Oklahoma, but that were seeking to sell alcohol in the state (e.g., national distributors), required a nonresident seller (NRS) license. Okla. … “Private actors are immune from antitrust liability for petitioning the government, even when the private actors’ motives are anticompetitive.” Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 912 (9th Cir. 2007).

Brown v. Farris

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 25, 2021

North Fork Correctional Center (NFCC) violated his right to due process by interfering with his access to his legal property and his access to the Court, failing to provide an adequate law library, and failing to provide qualified … Nor could he prevail on that claim as this court previously determined that Brown’s “sentences were all within the sentencing ranges for the crimes charged, as established under Oklahoma law.”

Cassel v. Truss Communications

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 9, 2025

But the presumption may be rebutted “if the text of the charge clearly sets forth the basis of the claim.” Id. … The ADA recognizes certain mental health conditions as qualifying disabilities.

Torres v. Cintas Corp.

672 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 13, 2009

It is not sufficient that the employer had knowledge of a risk of injury to its employees, but the evidence must establish that the employer acted or failed to act with actual knowledge of a substantial certainty that its … Although plaintiff does not address the applicability of § 109 to Lavatech, the Court also finds that Lavatech qualifies as a person “performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction

Atchison v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 27, 2023

Plaintiff does not argue that any specific document on the privilege log is not fully described or that any of the documents would not qualify as work product in the ordinary case.8 Instead, Plaintiff hangs his hat on … Here, Plaintiff arguably has established a substantial need for documents labeled TCDA PL 0061 through 0072.

Morris v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 15, 2020

First, the court 4 should make a preliminary finding that the expert is qualified to testify. Id. at 1232-33. … Next, the proponent of expert testimony must establish that the expert used reliable methods to reach his/her conclusion and that the expert’s opinion is based on a reliable factual basis. Id. at 1233.

Hubbell v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 2, 2022

Both parties have obtained expert testimony and other evidence in support of their position concerning the need to replace plaintiffs’ roof, and State Farm clearly has a legitimate basis to dispute coverage in this case. … First, the court should make a preliminary finding that the expert is qualified to testify. Id. at 1232-33.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Frates

44 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1999

There is, however, no evidence of record which clearly establishes the assets of the Frates Group or Mr. Frates’ percentage share of the Frates Group. … Frates' premise that the evidence clearly establishes that all parties shared the same misapprehension regarding the extent and scope of the deed warranties applicable in this case.

United States v. Four (4) Firearms and One Hundred Fifty Two Rounds of Assorted Ammunition

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2019

However, Claimant clearly states he “urges this Court to do just that.” [Dkt. 32, pp. 5-6]. … Rehlander, 666 F.3d 45, 50 (1st Cir. 2012)(involuntary admission to psychiatric hospital under Maine’s ex parte emergency procedure does not qualify as a judicial commitment under Maine’s laws); U.S. v.

Waggoner v. Marsh

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 4, 2025

Hall 8 The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the “burden rests with the moving party to establish the likelihood of such harm by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 911, ¶ 23. v. … In Harlow, the Supreme Court discussed the contours of the qualified immunity available to Presidential aides. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 809, 813– 19.

Holland v. Allbaugh

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 2022

Because it is clear that the OCCA applied Strickland, Holland cannot show that the OCCA’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law. House, 527 F.3d at 1018-19. … Holland cites no clearly established federal law governing a state court’s discretionary decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. Dkt. 9, Am. Pet. 15; Dkt. 10, Pet’r’s Br. 39.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 28, 2023

At step two, the claimant must establish an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. See Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. … A claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms, alone, cannot establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Franco-Gomez v. Noem

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2025

But “[e]xhaustion is typically nonjurisdictional,” and courts “treat a rule as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that it is.” Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 416-17 (2023) (cleaned up). … But even § 1252(d)(1) “lacks the clear statement necessary to qualify as jurisdictional.” Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 417.

Fisher v. Social Security Administration

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

Specifically, Plaintiff claims the existing record clearly establishes that his mental impairments cause auditory hallucinations, command voices, fatigue, and problems with concentration and memory; therefore, … established in the record.”

Cook

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 28, 2026

Step one requires the claimant to establish that she is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, as defined by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1510, 416.910. … App’x 646, 650 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Clearly, an ALJ does [not] commit error by omitting limitations not supported by the record.”); Arles v. Astrue, 438 F.

United States v. Myers

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 6, 2023

Defendant’s § 2255 motion is fully briefed and he has clearly articulated the factual and legal issues that he believes support his request to vacate his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions, and the Court finds that it would not … An offense must now qualify under § 924(c)(3)(A), known as the elements clause, in order to serve as a predicate offense for a § 924(c) conviction.

Reed

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2026

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 (1977).5 Under Oklahoma law, however, intracompany communications do not qualify as publications. Starr v. … The existence of the requisite state of mind to destroy a qualified privilege is “normally a question of fact.”