Case law

Washington v. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 12, 2019

Furthermore, “individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established … When an individual defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

McKee v. City of Skiatook, Oklahoma

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

qualified immunity. … Once qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] that a reasonable factfinder could find facts sup- porting the violation of a constitutional right that had been clearly established

Poore v. Glanz

46 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 29, 2014

Sheriff Glanz did not present a qualified immunity analysis in his summary judgment papers. … There is also not a single reference to qualified immunity in Glanz’s reply brief. (See Doc. 104).

Ibarra v. Lee

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 14, 2024

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and directed the Court to reevaluate the second prong of qualified immunity to determine whether Jorge Mar- tinez’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff must show that (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at

Goff

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 20, 2026

Qualified immunity shields public officials from facing the burdens of litigation and is an immunity from suit, not simply a defense to a plaintiff’s claims. Serna v. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Laca v. United States

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 18, 2024

Discovery & Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Burke v. City of Bartlesville

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 16, 2024

REV. 45, 63 (2010) (“The Supreme Court has never spelled out what sources of law may clearly establish the law.”); Joanna C. Schwartz, The Case Against Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L. … The old framework makes more intuitive sense—particularly when denying qualified immunity. clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. See Clanton v.

Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Commission v. National Indian Gaming Commission

214 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2002

It is well established and “elementary that ‘[t]he United States, as sovereign, is *1164 immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ..., and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction … To establish standing under Article 111 of the Constitution, plaintiffs must meet three requirements.

Walker v. Anderson

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 22, 2024

immunity because his takedown maneuver violated clearly established law. … clearly established.

RC v. Independent School District No. 2 of Osage County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2024

any constitutional rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … Clearly Established Right A right is clearly established if a reasonable public official would have known that his or her challenged conduct was illegal. Martinez v.

Tate v. City of Bartlesville

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields public officials from facing the burdens of litigation and is an immunity from suit, not simply a defense to a plaintiff’s claims. Serna v. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco, Co.

491 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 5, 2007

However, it is not this Court’s role to revisit established legal principles or to ignore the requirement of an express waiver of immunity based on perceived inequities. See Am. Indian Agric. Credit Consortium, Inc. v. … But it is too late in the day, and certainly beyond the competence of this court, to take issue with a doctrine so well-established.”).

Reddell v. Gammill

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2019

“Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … right that was clearly established at the time. 3.

Great West Casualty Co. v. Boroughs

505 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 17, 2007

From the standpoint of Boroughs, the injury was clearly an unexpected accident. … Stat. tit. 36, § 3636 even though the tort-feasor was a coemployee who was immune from suit under exclusivity provisions of Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation laws.

Denton v. Yancey

142 F. Supp. 3d 1174 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 23, 2015

immunity. … The Court need not reach the question of whether Defendants Yancey and Ray are entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Patterson

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 2026

4 constitutional violation was clearly established. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hayes v. Owen

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 17, 2025

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. Dkt. 122 at 24-28. … Where a plaintiff fails to discuss whether the rights were clearly established or fails to cite legal authority in response to an assertion of qualified immunity, the defendant is entitled to qualified immun- ity.

Doe v. Oologah-Talala Independent School District No. 4 of Rogers County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 29, 2024

Qualified immunity shields public officials “ʻfrom damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gutierrez v. … A right is considered clearly established where “ʻa Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision [is] on point, or the clearly established weight of au- thority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff

Simpson v. Little

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

“When a defendant raises the qualified-immunity defense, the ‘onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at … Accordingly, the “clearly established weight of authority from other courts” supports a denial of qualified immunity to Officer Little under the facts alleged.

Wade v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 9, 2019

clearly established at the time of the violation.” … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, . . . the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish (1) a violation of a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established.” Puller v.