Case law

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

Daly v. Stotts

126 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 7, 1954

Symes, 10 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 828, 830, 831 , Judge Murrah stated: “Clearly, the gravamen of the appellant’s suit is one for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. … “It is well established that the protection provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is against the acts of the States only. It does not apply to the acts of individuals. [Citing authority.]” Watkins v.

Janus v. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 8, 2021

clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” … Ordinarily, “[i]n this circuit, to show that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff must point to ‘a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts

Serpik Family v. Webb

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 20, 2025

Defendants raise a variety of defenses, including sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, res judicata, failure to state a plausible claim, and others. … To overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, “a plaintiff must show that: (1) the public official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) these rights were clearly established at the time

West

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2026

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on such basis. … Here, Defendants assertion of qualified immunity in their respective Motions is patently deficient.

Catholic Benefits Ass'n LCA v. Sebelius

24 F. Supp. 3d 1094 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 4, 2014

Francis, these Plaintiffs qualify for the accommodation. … And here, the parties clearly disagree as to the scope of the preliminary injunction, rendering Reaching Souls unconvincing on this point. .

Pendleton v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 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.” … And while Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity arguably raised the clearly-established-law question, see Cox v.

Lippe v. Howard

287 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 14, 2018

Cocklin is clearly qualified to testify about issues regarding alcoholic beverage regulations, it appears he lacks any specialized knowledge related to use of force or police practice and procedure. … Despite this focus, "an expert's conclusions are not immune from scrutiny." Dodge v. Cotter Corp. , 328 F.3d 1212 , 1222 (10th Cir. 2003).

Stevenson v. Independent School District No. I-038 of Garvin County

393 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 19, 2005

Plaintiffs do not identify the rights, privileges, or immunities of which Chase was allegedly deprived. … Thus, they cannot use § 1983 to do what they cannot do directly under these Acts — establish individual liability. Alsbrook, 184 F.3d at 1011-12 . Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, Counts IV and V, are dismissed.

Coleman v. Court of Appeals, Division Number Two of Oklahoma

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.

United States v. Johnston

138 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1956

Where there are material misrepresentations which go directly to the competency and general qualification of the applicant to perform the applied for work and where clearly the applicant would not have been hired, or his … In order for the Government to demonstrate it has been the object of false and fraudulent claims, the evidence must establish that the defendant was not qualified, by generally recognized professional standards, to do the

Hughes v. Oklahoma State of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 31, 2022

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs “‘must establish that each defendant . . . [violated] plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights . . . … However, in the qualified immunity context, the Supreme Court has imposed an all-but-ironclad rule that a § 1983 plaintiff must plead himself into court and get past qualified immunity (if, as here, challenged at the Rule

Thomsen v. Armfield

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 10, 2024

In § 1983 cases involving qualified immunity, “plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to show (assuming they are true) that the defendants plausibly violated their constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly … established at the time.

Miller v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2023

Qualified Immunity As noted, the Individual Defendants raised qualified immunity in their motion. … ) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

McCarther v. Grady County

437 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 25, 1977

doctrine of sovereign immunity; and that the County is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. … It has been clearly established that a county is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 2413 , 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976); Moor v.

Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Williamson

120 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 1, 1954

Numerous and familiar decisions of this court establish that they have a wide range of discretion in that regard. … discernible, or read in such manner as to be clearly understood.”

Parker v. Allbaugh

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 14, 2019

the service – and that the failure to do so caused him to lose a nonfrivolous habeas case, in violation of his clearly established right of meaningful access to the courts. … The Court finds these conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a § 1983 claim against Defendant Allbaugh and to overcome his qualified immunity defense.

Howard v. Baca

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants Elmore and Bolling also assert that they are immune from suit because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … must not define the relevant constitutional right ‘at a high level of generality.’”43 Instead, “the clearly established law must be particularized to the facts of the case.”44 This avoids “convert[ing] the rule of qualified

Taylor v. Comanche County Detention Center

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hobbs argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim. … “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

Rudman v. Oklahoma State of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 18, 2022

Defendant Robinson, who is sued in her individual capacity, raises the defense of qualified immunity. … When a defendant asserts a qualified-immunity defense, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to show “(1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right (2) that was clearly established