Case law

Hill v. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 3, 2025

And in her Response, Plaintiff simply argues that her claims “implicate discriminatory treatment, which qualifies as protected opposition under Title VII.” Resp. at 5. Her conclusory argument does not suffice. … sovereign immunity from liability”); Bright v.

Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2025

abrogated that immunity and the tribe has not clearly waived its immunity.” … Because the Tribe enjoys tribal sovereign immunity, to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff must show that the Tribe has waived that immunity, or that Congress has abrogated it.

Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital

76 F.R.D. 136 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 17, 1977

The scope of examination by interrogatories should not be curtailed unless the information sought is clearly irrelevant. Felix A. Thil-let, Inc. v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., 41 F.R.D. 55 (D.P.R.1966). … Defendant’s conclusory statement that Interrogatory No. 12 seeks medical information which Defendant is not qualified to give is not a sufficient response.

Silkwood Ex Rel. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

460 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1978

environmentalists . ; the allegations of the complaint are specific that the assault was sparked solely by the instant reaction of the defendants to the fact that the plaintiffs were seeking to photograph the defendants, clearly … Under the blueprint established by the Constitution, most private tortious conduct is left to state regulation.

Kinney ex rel. Kinney v. Sullivan

746 F. Supp. 1067 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 16, 1990

The record clearly shows that Rebecca Kinney and McNelious Jones, Jr. never intermarried prior to his death. The record also clearly shows that Mr. … The evidence in this case also clearly establishes that Mr.

Horton v. Garland

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 20, 2022

in order to establish the court’s jurisdiction. … Clearly, plaintiff has not alleged any factual basis to establish an injury in fact. Without the necessary allegations, the court concludes that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. See, FW/PSB, Inc. v.

Thompson v. United States Ex Rel. Brown

493 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 23, 1980

The United States asserts that Plaintiff’s claim in his first cause of action for medical negligence concerning his enlistment is clearly within the purview of Feres v. … In establishing a judicial exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Supreme Court in Feres v.

Arndt v. Hatfield

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 20, 2020

A complaint must clearly state what each defendant--typically, a named government employee--did to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights. See Bennett v. … App’x 723, 725 (10th Cir. 2013) (“the [state court] judge, court clerks, and prosecutor are all entitled to absolute immunity under well-established precedent from the Supreme Court and this court”) (citing Harlow v.

Dowell v. Board of Education

606 F. Supp. 1548 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 1985

Similarly, middle schools (grades 6-8) were desegregated by the establishment of attendance zones for each school. … The Supreme Court has clearly stated that “official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.” Arlington Heights v.

Carey Lumber Co. v. Hetherington

107 F. Supp. 995 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 15, 1952

This statute when followed enables a defendant to obtain a release of the lien, and to avoid interest, attorney’s fee and costs where he can establish that the lien-holder is demanding more than he is entitled. … The court is of the opinion that the legislature by section 147 has set clearly the pattern to be followed to release a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien. The defendant has not qualified.

Davis v. Fed. Ins. Co.

382 F. Supp. 3d 1189 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 8, 2019

Niblo-who the parties agree is the only qualified medical expert in this case. … Mosley's death qualified as a covered loss under the Policy's terms.

United States v. Stipe

517 F. Supp. 867 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 13, 1981

Although it may be inconvenient for them, there is nothing unique about the case which convinces the Court that it is unreasonable to require the Government to meet the minimum standards expressed in James, supra, and clearly … We adhere to our requirement established in Apollo that fulfillment of the conditions of admissibility must be established by evidence independent of the co-conspirator statement itself.

Frost v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma

26 F.2d 508 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1927

This act does not grant to any railroad company privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, do not equally belong to every other railroad company. … Whenever a company comes into any class, it has all the ‘privileges and immunities’ that have been granted by the statute to any other company in that class.

Hartel

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 24, 2026

It is also undisputed that Plaintiff applied for a position for which he was qualified. … “Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity through the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” and the State of Oklahoma has not generally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Littlejohn v.

United States Ex Rel. Trim v. McKean

31 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1998

Clearly Dr. McKean did not feel his billing was constricted by the information provided by the doctors he served. For example, Dr. … McKean had no justification for its use, and it was clearly a designation that the chart did not support the level of service claimed.

Sherman v. Kendall

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 24, 2021

Section 1367, however, does not waive federal sovereign immunity. See, San Juan County, Utah v. U.S., 503 F.3d 1163, 1181 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc). … A hostile work environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act requires a plaintiff to show that he is a “‘qualified 4 It appears the Tenth Circuit recognizes such a claim. See, Clancy v. Miller, 837 Fed.

Bruning v. City of Guthrie

101 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2015

Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290 (10th Cir.2001) (party seeking removal has the burden of proof to establish jurisdiction); Laughlin v. … The Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have also grappled with the general issue, but not in a way that clearly places them in one camp or the other. Boone v.

Davis v. United States

199 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2002

Vollmann, nevertheless, in the same memorandum concluded that the Eligibility Requirement was acceptable because the intent of Congress was not clearly established. See Pis.’ Mem. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss Ind. … “The courts ordinarily should not interfere with an agency until it has completed its action, or else has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction.” Id. at 194 , 89 S.Ct. 1657 .

Parker

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 4, 2026

Regarding Ratliff’s claim that he is immune to suit under Okla. … Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought to be established.

Better Business Bureau of Oklahoma City, Inc. v. Jones

34 F. Supp. 573 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1940

The defendant is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the state of Oklahoma. The jurisdiction of the court is admitted. … This court cannot ignore facts clearly within its knowledge and, particularly, facts acquired within its official capacity.