Case law

DeMarsh v. Payzant

550 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 12, 1981

U.S. 952 , 99 S.Ct. 2182 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1979), we described the test for determining whether a complaint asserts, on its face, a substantial federal question: "A case `arises' under the laws of the United States if it clearly … First National Bank of Guymon, Oklahoma, 437 F.Supp. 788 (W.D.Okl. 1977), as follows: [T]o establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3), Plaintiff must raise a substantial federal question.

United States v. Grey

355 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 28, 1973

The establishment of divisions and the drawing of names wholly from within such division is based on both considerations of unnecessary expense and undue burden to jurors. … Clearly, this is not the result intended by Congress and the law is well established that Defendants are not entitled to a proportionately-composed grand or petit jury, jury panel or qualified jury pool. Cf. Swain v.

KLX Energy Services LLC v. Magnesium Machine LLC

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 22, 2021

And thus, Appellees’ conduct does not qualify for the 2KLX also makes a 12(b)(6) argument based on the litigation privilege, citing Cardtoons, L.C. v. … It is not clear whether a partial dismissal of certain counterclaims should qualify as “dismissal of a legal action.”

Edwards v. State of Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 10, 2025

Although “Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to a state official sued in his official capacity when the plaintiff seeks only prospective, injunctive relief,” Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. … Additionally, to the extent the motion seeks some sort of preliminary injunction, he has not complied with the requirements set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 or established that the factors governing whether

Hill v. Heckler

592 F. Supp. 1198 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 30, 1984

The duty of establishing those particular circumstances rests with the party who asserts the existence of the class and that party must produce some evidence or otherwise establish by reasonable estimate the number of class … The statute also clearly provides in § 405(a), quoted at length, supra in footnote 3, that the Secretary has “full power and authority” to establish by rules and regulations the standards for benefit eligibility.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Voss Electric Co.

257 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2003

Eiland cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. To establish his prima facie case, Mr. … Eiland must “establish that: (l)[he] is a disabled person as defined by the ADA; (2)[he] is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired; and (3) the employer

Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance

587 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1984

By establishing her own claim, Ms. … However, that determination was clearly fact-based; all other claimants will have to prove their own cases in order to qualify for deposit insurance.

Robinson v. Disbrow

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 1, 2019

Administrative exhaustion is a condition of waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). … In order to show that Plaintiff was discriminated against as a result of her race, she must establish (1) that she was a member of a protected class, (2) that she was qualified and satisfactorily performing her job, and

Savage

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 21, 2026

Except for their assertion of qualified immunity, which the undersigned finds unnecessary to address, the undersigned considers each of Defendants’ arguments in turn. … Congress abrogates a state’s immunity.

Cain v. Ponca City Independent School District I-71

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

They raise the defense of qualified immunity. … When the defense of qualified immunity is invoked, the plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so (2) that the right was clearly

Kochert v. Lindsay City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 19, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the foregoing conduct, she was: (1) “overlooked for promotions for which she was otherwise qualified”; (2) “placed on a punitive work schedule,” resulting in “lost time from work” … The Hospital, a public trust chartered by the City of Lindsay, is a proper § 1983 defendant under the municipal liability rubric established in Monell v.

Anaya-Smith v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company

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

family members, or the $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence minimum established by Okla. … The UM declaration then clearly reflects up to $1 million in UM coverage for “directors, officers, partners or owners of the named insured and their ‘family members’ who qualify as ‘insureds’,” and no UM coverage for any

Federal Pr. Com'n v. Corporation Com'n of State of Okla.

362 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 26, 1973

, as such, is immune to suit under 15 U.S.C. § 717a. … Morton, CA 10, 1971, 455 F.2d 650 , but the case is clearly distinguishable.

Hutchins

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 15, 2025

Plaintiff next argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they lacked probable cause for the arrest. … As explained in the Court’s prior order, the undisputed material facts, which Plaintiff did not controvert, establish that the traffic stop and arrest were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Hatch

890 F. Supp. 995 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1995

In 1929, they adopted a written constitution and established an elected, representative form of government. … While clearly the nature of the lands involved in a case may be crucial, the Court finds the Supreme Court’s analysis instructive.

United States v. McVeigh

918 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 24, 1996

Some appellate courts have sought to distinguish the common law principle of openness from the qualified First Amendment right of access. … Indeed, *1467 they are clearly premature and probably moot since the reassignment of this case. Some documents have been unsealed. by orders entered by Magistrate Judge How-land by agreement of the parties.

Allen v. Cook

668 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 17, 1987

To establish individual liability under § 1983, plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of two elements: (1) that the act or omission deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws … While a “policy of omission” theory has sometimes been argued successfully, it is clearly not susceptible to easy proof. See Wellington v.

Castleman v. Stitt

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 27, 2024

He contends the disregard for oversight and safeguards harmed him because he “was injected with a drug his medical records clearly stated he is allergic to.” (Id.) He also contends he is the victim of a crime. … Oklahoma law establishes a two-year statute of limitations period for tort actions. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95.

Marshall v. Kelly

465 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 29, 1978

In addition, these accounts did not satisfy the definition of a “qualified” account under the security agreement. … No renewal of any note or other outstanding obligation to the Plan may be made unless same is clearly in keeping with ERISA law and rules and regulations there *355 under promulgated.

Carroll v. United States

227 F. Supp. 3d 1242 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 3, 2017

These facts must, at a minimum, establish an inference of the presence of each element essential to the case. Id. … “The most important consideration in establishing duty is foreseeability.” Id.