Case law

Markham v. Rios

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 27, 2019

To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’”

Willis v. Oklahoma County Detention Center

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2022

to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Right To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must additionally show that Newkirk’s actions violated clearly established law.

Kimbrough v. Board of Trustees for the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants Jones, Hooker, and Khan assert that they are immune from suit because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 22, 2022

Qualified immunity requires that a civil rights suit be dismissed “if the complaint fails to allege a constitutional violation or if the alleged violation was not clearly established.” Robbins v. … “If dispositive of the claim, [a court] ordinarily need address only the second element of qualified immunity, that is, whether the law supporting a constitutional violation was clearly established.” Sanchez v.

Fanning v. School Board of Independent School District 23

395 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 8, 1975

Where suit is directed against individual Board members, as is not the case here, the common-law tradition and public policy of a qualified good-faith immunity may be raised if there has been compliance with the standards … of conduct established by statutes and case law.

Routt v. Howry

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

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff does not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine both (1) whether the complaint alleges conduct that amounts to a constitutional violation; and, (2) whether the right violated was clearly established at

Vision Bank v. Avery

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 5, 2025

“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 … Clearly Established Law Although a reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation, Avery is still entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff can show that the

Crist

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 7, 2026

In seeking dismissal, Defendant West also invokes the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that his alleged actions violated a clearly established right. … “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

Lameda v. Independent School District No 29 of Cleveland County Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2021

Clearly Established Law The individual defendants alternatively assert that, if an equal protection claim is stated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot … that the clearly established prong of qualified immunity cannot be defined at a level of generality that fails to demonstrate every reasonable official would have understood their alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Jones v. Moore City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2025

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … “Ordinarily, 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

Phelps v. Holliman

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 27, 2025

The court therefore turns to whether Phelps has satisfied his burden under the second prong of the qualified immunity test–the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. … In sum, the court concludes that Phelps has satisfied his burden on the second prong of the qualified immunity test–the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.

Bowens v. Board of County Commissioners of Custer County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 1, 2020

The Court will consider Defendant Morgan’s arguments in the context of his claim of qualified immunity.2 When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, the responsibility shifts to the Plaintiff … In evaluating whether the law was clearly established, the Court considers whether it is clearly established that the officer’s conduct would violate constitutional rights. Mullenix v.

Fleak v. Allman

420 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1976

. §§ 2201 and 2202 to declare and to define the rights and legal relations of the parties and to secure plaintiff’s and intervenor’s 1 rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States. … and the qualified candidate. “ . . .

Baker v. Oklahoma City City of

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

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … When a defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) by reason of qualified immunity, “there is ‘a presumption that the defendant is immune from suit.’” Bledsoe v.

Castanon v. Cathey

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2019

Faced with the individual Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must point to a clearly established right that Defendants violated. See Milcor I, 764 F. App’x at 752. … Thus, to the dispositive question in qualified immunity cases—was the violative nature of particular conduct clearly established?—the answer, here, is no. See Mullinex, 136 S. Ct. at 308.

Ware v. Richardson

347 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 24, 1972

The parties and their respective positions in the suit are set out in the margin. 1 The Federal Defendants rely on sovereign immunity. Defendant Great Plains is in default of answer or other response. … law applicable to housing authorities created for cities and counties and the commissioners of such authorities shall be applicable to Indian Housing Authorities and the commissioners thereof, unless a different meaning clearly

Rhoades v. Stitt

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2023

Winder, 16 F.4th 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 2021)(“Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Roberts’ substantive due process right was not clearly established. Potts v. … For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Defendant Stitt is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of Plaintiff Harrell’s separation that he had a statutory right

German v. Rhoades

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 9, 2019

Some of defendants’ arguments assert qualified immunity as a basis for dismissal. … D. (2), defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim alleged under the Fourth Amendment (the second cause of action) because no clearly established law holds that their

Patterson v. Rural Water District 2 Cotton County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 7, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Court’s analysis focuses on the clearly-established-law prong.

Massey v. City of Oklahoma City

643 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1986

In order for a plaintiff to qualify for the civil remedies of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (1982), he must first prove that the defendant has previously committed one of the “predicate offenses” set out in 18 *85 U.S.C. § 1962 (1982) … For these reasons, the Supreme Court decided that municipal corporations are immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .