Case law

Hankins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2026

However, unlike most affirmative defenses, plaintiff bears “the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law. … which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

Knight v. State of Oklahoma

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

Qualified Immunity – Scully and Sugg Defendants Scully and Sugg also have pending a motion to dismiss, making various arguments including that their actions are shielded by qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law).

Ali v. Lambert

384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2019

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … the relevant law is clearly established."

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

Heard v. Bear

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

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … 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.

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Romero v. City of Miami

8 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Anderson The Individual Defendants argue that City Attorney Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, they argue that Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law which prohibits a city attorney from providing advice to a municipality regarding the legality of a random drug

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Moore v. City of Tulsa

55 F. Supp. 3d 1337 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 22, 2014

“In order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff … As plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to preclude granting qualified immunity, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as to Fire Chief Driskell’s qualified immunity from suit. VIII.

Torres v. White

685 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified immunity shields officers from suit for official acts, as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

WAGONER COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 v. Grand River Dam Authority

625 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 25, 2008

State agencies that qualify as arms of the State, generally, possess sovereign immunity. 2 See Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. … Plaintiffs aver, therefore, that this Court’s analysis of Eleventh Amendment immunity must begin with resolving “whether [GRDA] has established sovereign immunity regarding [the] particular claimfs] at issue.” Id.

Smith v. Cochran

216 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 9, 2001

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 liability for civil damages if their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Cochran is not entitled to summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense because Smith has alleged facts sufficient to show that Cochran violated clearly established federal law such that a reasonable government

Babb v. Eagleton

614 F. Supp. 2d 1232 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2008

These qualified immunity cases accept as an established legal premise that a judicial officer would not be stripped of his or her immunity from a federal statutory violation simply because the statute also provided certain … In addition, judicial immunity, even more so than qualified immunity, is well-rooted in federal jurisprudence. See Forrester v.

Sanders ex rel. Ray v. Glanz

138 F. Supp. 3d 1248 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2015

Glanz also asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In resolving questions of § 1983 qualified immunity (at the summary judgment stage), courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry. Tolan v. … Waide, 534 F.3d 1227, 1242 (10th Cir.2008) (rejecting claim .that the constitutional right was not clearly established and stating that “[t]he Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have repeatedly and unequivocally established

Stillwell v. Lawrence

766 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 21, 2011

Lawrence argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff has not cited any authority showing that his right to notice of a reinstatement policy at the time of his removal was clearly established as a matter … The Court also notes that Lawrence has raised a defense of qualified immunity and it is plaintiffs burden, not the Court’s, to show that Lawrence violated plaintiffs clearly established rights.

Howell Ex Rel. Patterson v. City of Catoosa

729 F. Supp. 1308 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 3, 1990

the law and that the law was clearly established when the violation occurred. … Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit” rather than a mere defense to liability. Like absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Powell v.

Bjorklund v. Miller

779 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 15, 2011

The next question is whether any Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Miller may still be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, however, if Plaintiffs alleged right was not “clearly established at the time official action was taken.” See Walker v.