Case law

Vue v. Dowling

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 22, 2022

On June 18, 2021, Defendant Bradley Rogers, the DCCC’s STI Agent, informed Vue that, based on information in Vue’s file, Vue had two points under the STI system, qualifying him as an “associate” of the Sureños. … The Court must identify any cognizable claim and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Ferrell v. Walton

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

who are sued in both their individual and official capacities, seek dismissal of the claims raised against them on the bases that the allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for relief and that they are entitled to qualified … immunity.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Lujan

811 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1992

Clearly, the Secretary of the Interior has a continuing right and obligation to audit and reconcile lease accounts. 30 U.S.C. § 1711 (c). … The interim payments procedure was established under the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(b) and 20 C.F.R. § 405.451 (a). 12 .

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company v. TCI Pacific Communications, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2021

TCI argues that Gravel is not qualified to offer expert testimony on the issue of compliance with the NCP, because he lacks training and expertise and he has not previously been qualified as an expert on this issue. … The Tenth Circuit has determined that a party qualifies as an “arranger” if three elements are established: “(1) the party must be a ‘person’ as defined in CERCLA; (2) the party must ‘own’ or ‘possess’ the hazardous substance

Forbes v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 12, 2022

Furthermore, the ticket seller job involves a “Level 3 – Moderate” noise level, which is clearly consistent with the RFC limiting Plaintiff to a moderate noise intensity level. DOT 211.467-030. … There is no magic number that qualifies as a “significant number” of jobs. See Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1330 (10th Cir. 1992).

Young v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2022

Plaintiff did not present VE testimony or other evidence establishing that his medication would necessarily preclude him from obtaining the required license. … 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 4 The agency no longer uses

Wheeler v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 12, 2021

Second, plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred by finding that any error at step two is harmless as long as the ALJ found at least one impairment qualifies as severe. Id. at 3. … Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 2016), the Tenth Circuit clearly states that as long as the ALJ finds one !

Project Drilling, LLC v. Ledya Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, SA

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 11, 2022

Project’s claims against LOG clearly arise out of LOG’s contacts with Oklahoma, and the same evidence also establishes that Project’s injury arose from LOG’s contacts with Oklahoma. … LOG also argues that potential economic loss is insufficient as a matter of law to qualify as irreparable harm.

Feenstra v. Sigler

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 13, 2019

and therefore “[t]he state, its political subdivisions, and all of their employees acting within the scope of their employment . . . shall be immune from liability for torts.” … Thus, as recognized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, “‘constitutional’ torts are . . . clearly ‘torts’ governed by the GTCA.” Barrios v. Haskell Cty. Pub.

Shaw v. Cherokee Meadows, LP

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 30, 2019

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on handicap under the FHA, plaintiffs must prove that: (1) they are handicapped; (2) that they applied for and were qualified to rent a unit in the Community … “To make out a prima facie case for discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, [plaintiffs] must establish: ‘(1) that [she] is disabled under the Act’; (2) that [she] would be ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate

Alexander v. Traill

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

The TCSO has established administrative procedures for inmates housed at the DLMCJC to submit requests and grievances. [Dkt. 20-1, at 4-7 (Def.’s Ex. C, Inmate Handbook)]. … immunity, and (4) Alexander is not entitled to any damages.

Butler v. Nunn

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 16, 2022

Dkt. # 9-2, at 21-23; Dkt. # 9-4, at 1; see Clark, 468 F.3d at 714 (explaining that motions and applications filed after expiration of the limitation period do not qualify as tolling motions under § 2244(d)(2)). … In short, the instant petition, filed December 22, 2021,6 is clearly untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Bryant v. Social Security Administration

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

At step two, the claimant must establish an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. See Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. … Clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” SSR 16-3p at *10; see also White v.

Vaughn v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 22, 2022

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 … See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency psychologist are “highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation”).

Hanson v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2022

Standard of Review The Social Security Act (the Act) provides disability insurance benefits to qualifying individuals who have a physical or mental disability … established in the record.”

Mahalxmi Hospitality, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

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

However, it appears to be undisputed that Mahalxmi qualified as an insured under the Policies. [Doc. 112-3, p. 4; Doc. 112-4, p. 4]. … It is well-established under Oklahoma law that “unless fraud or mistake is involved pre- contract negotiations and oral discussions are merged into, and superseded by, the terms of the executed written agreement.”

Allen v. Crow

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 14, 2022

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for state prisoners seeking federal collateral review of a state-court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. … Dkt. # 9, at 2; Dkt. # 9-2, at 8-14; see Clark, 468 F.3d at 714 (explaining that motions and applications filed after expiration of the limitation period do not qualify as tolling motions under § 2244(d)(2)).

Juarez v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2024

Standard of Review The Social Security Act (the Act) provides disability insurance benefits to qualifying individuals who have a physical or mental disability. … some instances, a controlling issue, every effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issue as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit.”).° V.

Sitsler v. Buss

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 13, 2025

Sitsler alleges that the holdings of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) were in error and/or contrary to clearly established Federal law. See id. … Respondent argues, Sitsler’s Application does not qualify as a tolling motion under § 2244(d)(2) because it was not properly filed. Dkt. No. 20 at 9-15. The Court agrees with Respondent.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 6, 2020

As a result of the Underlying Action, certain Underlying Defendants made demand on State Farm for defense and immunity under the Policies. … “Once the insured establishes coverage, ‘the insurer has the burden of showing that a loss falls within an exclusionary clause of the policy.’” Id. (quoting Pitman v.