Case law

Parker v. Lawton City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 28, 2025

at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.”

Christian v. Thompson

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 3, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects 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.” … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Rudman v. Oklahoma State of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 26, 2023

discerning clearly established law. … The court dismissed the claims under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Smith v. Allbaugh

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 24, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects 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.” … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Tice v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 2, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly 9 Donaldson was disciplined in part for placing a flyer allegedly created by the Committee and … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that both (1) the official violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right violated was clearly established

Espinosa-Hernandez v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County

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

“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 … Regarding the requisite proof of clearly established law, “[a] plaintiff may satisfy this standard by identifying an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision; alternatively ‘the clearly established

Lambert v. Inryco, Inc.

569 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 4, 1982

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not favored and will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of … Chamness, 168 P.2d 1007 (Okl.1946) and his statements that mere cooperation or close proximity is not sufficient to establish horizontal immunity does not persuade the Court that its Order Granting Summary Judgment filed

United States v. Ken Mar Associates, Ltd.

697 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 27, 1987

Defendants’ counterclaim for abuse of discretion clearly falls within an exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and is therefore not actionable. … Griffith acknowledges at page 3 of his September 17, 1987, affidavit that the government did not comply with items 10 and 17 of the scheduling order established by Judge Alley, pertaining to dispositive motions and proposed

Rainwater v. Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 27, 2020

Defendants alternatively argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to sustain a substantive due process claim and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.5 Qualified immunity protects … Once a defendant invokes a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established.

Rainwater v. Board of Regents for the University of Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 30, 2020

Defendants alternatively argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to sustain a substantive due process claim and that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.5 Qualified immunity protects … Once a defendant invokes a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established.

Coleman v. COURT OF APPEALS, DIV. NO. TWO, ETC.

550 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1980

from civil action of this nature by virtue of the doctrine of judicial immunity. … Such sign and the lettering thereon shall be of sufficient size so as to be clearly visible and legible from the public street or streets toward which it faces.

Morris ex rel. Estate of Morris v. Humphrey

59 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 2, 2014

constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.’ ” Estate of Booker v. … defense of qualified immunity. .

Cowboy Book v. BD. OF REGENTS FOR AGR. & MECH. COL.

728 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1989

. § 1 et seq. [1] The Defendant asserts two jurisdictional defenses: 1) immunity from the antitrust laws under the state action exemption, and 2) sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … On the other hand, actions of state agencies which are actively supervised [4] and which embody a clearly and affirmatively expressed state policy [5] rise to the level of immunity under the state action exemption.

Barnett v. Bryan L Billings Esq

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 4, 2025

When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time it took place. Ms. … Barnett has pointed to no clearly established law with the requisite level of specificity and for that reason, she has failed to overcome the assertion of qualified immunity by officers Penix and Matthews.

Commodity Credit Corp. v. County of Oklahoma

36 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 8, 1941

This is true, in the absence of evidence qualifying the delivery of the receipts, such as the evidence of the contract of pledge. … The rule is well established that the pledgee is entitled to the possession of the property until a full tender of the debt for which it is pledged is made.”

Lewis v. Edmond City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2021

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Estate of Ceballos v.

Knutson v. Oklahoma City City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants Locke and Smith assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s federal claims. … Where the law is not clearly established, courts do not require officials to anticipate its future developments, and qualified immunity is therefore appropriate.

Dopp v. Honaker

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have … right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established” at that time.

Parks v. AIG

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 20, 2024

Qualified Immunity Plaintiffs’ claims against all County and State Defendants raise the specter of qualified immunity. … Under its shield, “government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Lacaze v. City of Oklahoma City

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

right], which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.” … Qualified Immunity: Clearly Established Right Because Plaintiff has met his burden to show that a reasonable jury could find that Defendant Gourley discriminated against Plaintiff based upon his race in violation