Case law

Goss v. Cathey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 20, 2019

This does not mean that complaints in cases subject to qualified immunity defenses must include all the factual allegations necessary to sustain a conclusion that defendant violated clearly established … Cathey is entitled to qualified immunity, and because Plaintiff failed to link Defendant Cathey to any alleged Constitutional violation.

Affordable Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Tulsa County Sheriff's Office

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

, and that those rights were clearly established at the time.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Moman v. Barnhart

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

Qualified immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment as to both Fourth Amendment claims on the basis of qualified immunity because (1) the undisputed … But individual officials are entitled to qualified immunity only “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mayfield v.

Buck v. City of Tulsa

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants Rhoades and Parker argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. # 8, at 8. … Therefore, plaintiff has sufficiently established, at this stage of the proceedings, that defendants Rhoades and Parker are not entitled to qualified immunity. iv.

Banks v. Hayes

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

Mayberry is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against her unless plaintiffs show that Mayberry’s conduct violated a specific constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established … established. 18 constitutional law, but that applies to Hayes only and he has not requested qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim.

Wilson v. McKinney

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

unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was’ clearly established at the time.’” … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears an initial burden to show “(1) that [the] defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly

Child Doe 1, a minor, by and through parent and next friend, Parent Doe 1, et al. v. Tulsa County, ex. rel. Juvenile Bureau of the Tulsa County District Court, et al.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 11, 2026

Comm’rs, 965 F.3d 1114, 1115 n.1 (10th Cir. 2020) (per curium) (“[A]lthough qualified immunity only shields individuals—municipal liability for claims of deliberate indifference must follow only from clearly established … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) facts that demonstrate the officials violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’

Hayes v. Owen

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

Similarly, as to qualified immunity, Plaintiffs do not show a connection between the information sought and the validity of the immunity defense. See Gutierrez, 841 F.3d at 908. … Plaintiffs make no attempt to tie the proposed discovery to a clearly established federal constitutional or statutory right. See Heard v.

Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 5, 2000

Farrar clearly lacks the qualifications necessary to render opinions regarding the mechanical behavior of the Rogozinski device while implanted. Dr. … There are two exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma — mass immunizations and situations where the FDA has mandated that warning be given directly to the consumer — neither of which is applicable here

Carter v. Littlefield

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2023

Qualified Immunity All Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity will preclude a party from maintaining an action against a state officer unless the officer has violated the opposing party’s clearly established rights. See Perez v.

ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry

520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 4, 2007

One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”); Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. … Defendants focused their jurisdictional arguments on the issue of sovereign immunity.

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

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

Qualified Immunity Claims against police officers in their “individual capacity” are subject to the defense of qualified immunity. … “After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right. . . .

Knighten v. Ramsey

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

Finally, they argue that even if Ramsey’s alleged use of force violated the Constitution, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established right. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mayfield v.

Bailey v. Franklin

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 8, 2021

Qualified Immunity Claims brought against municipal police officers in their “individual capacity” are subject to the defense of qualified immunity. … “After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right. . . .

Drummond

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2026

Because Defendants raise the qualified-immunity defense, Plaintiff must “establish (1) the defendant[s] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Plaintiff has failed to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

435 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1977

First of all he testified before Your Honor had conferred immunity on him, and he refused and then he was given immunity and he testified all one afternoon, specifically on the afternoon of February 12, just almost a year … After being forced to testify through a grant of immunity, he established himself as an expert on federal income tax and the officer primarily responsible for the Company’s tax returns.

Savage v. Dobbertin

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … immunity because this Court determined the qualified immunity question in his favor at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Tobey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 7, 2026

Defendant Lee is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity under the Facts Alleged in the Complaint Finally, qualified immunity does not protect Lee under the facts as alleged in the … clearly established law.”

Liggins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 15, 2026

Kunzweiler and Jeffers allege in their motion that they are entitled to: 1) sovereign immunity; 2) absolute prosecutorial immunity; and 3) qualified immunity. Dkt. # 22, at 6-12. … Liggins, in response to the motion, argues that Kunzweiler and Jeffers are not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity or qualified immunity. Dkt. # 25, at 4-9.

Jones v. City of Sapulpa

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

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … Whether Plaintiff Plausibly Alleged Any Clearly Established Rights Notably, Plaintiff failed to respond to or address Defendant Byrnes’ claim of qualified immunity. (See Docket No. 27).