Case law

Cowboys for Life v. Sampson

983 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … immunity because the plaintiffs “right to be free from a retaliatory investigation [was] not clearly established.”

Morales v. CITY OF OKL. CITY EX REL. OKL. CITY POLICE DEPT.

230 P.3d 869 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 9, 2010

City of Oklahoma City, 21 in which we said, *876 “To construe § 155(4) as providing blanket immunity to political subdivisions for any claim arising from law enforcement would not conform to established precedent. … This much stands clearly recognized in the state’s criminal law.

Opinion No. (1991)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 6, 1991

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (officials qualifiedly immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known). ¶ 13 … applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and a public official's enforcement of such a statute may well deprive that official of qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .

Opinion No. (2005)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 3, 2005

clearly established law"). … Individual District Directors would enjoy qualified immunity that "shields public officials from suit insofar as the official's conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“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.” … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[The defendant] violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated [the plaintiff] for exercising her free speech rights.”).

Logan v. Oklahoma City Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2024

Initially, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Logan’s First Amendment claims because Logan cannot show a violation of clearly established law. … “In other words, general statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” Id.

Farrow v. Weatherford City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2025

The Individual Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show he had a “clearly established” constitutional right that they violated.5 They … plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly-established law” as required under the second qualified immunity prong). IV.

Hankins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2026

However, unlike most affirmative defenses, plaintiff bears “the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law. … which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

Coulter v. Butler

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

“‘When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … “Law is clearly established ‘if a plaintiff (1) identifies an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision or (2) shows the clearly established weight of authority from other courts has found the law to be

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2024

Finally, because the right at issue is clearly established, officer Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. … It was clearly established that once Mr.

Jackson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.

64 O.B.A.J. 3587 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 30, 1993

The Hospital was clearly within the Act’s protection when its personnel escorted the visitor out of the surgery area, seated him on the bed in the hallway, and then redirected their attention to the wife. … The Hospital was clearly responding to an apparent emergency that called for immediate action. THE COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION IS VACATED AND THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

Parks v. Taylor

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For these reasons, and because “the right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing [is] ‘clearly established,’” Mr. Yerby is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

McLin v. Trimble

61 O.B.A.J. 1633 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1990

The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The petitioners are immune from suit unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra.

Knight v. State of Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified Immunity – Scully and Sugg Defendants Scully and Sugg also have pending a motion to dismiss, making various arguments including that their actions are shielded by qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law).

Ali v. Lambert

384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2019

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … the relevant law is clearly established."

Rooks v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Corp. Commission

64 O.B.A.J. 39 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1992

The presumption of immunity is in favor of the government officials and is not overcome unless it is shown that they violated clearly established law or constitutional rights of which the reasonable official should have known … There is a presumption of qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McLin v. Trimble, supra, at 1041 , citing Mitchell v.

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ada Electric Cars, LLC v. Kemp

294 P.3d 448 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established … advertising that its vehicles qualified. %8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified

Barnthouse v. City of Edmond

74 O.B.A.J. 1297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2003

Material issues of fact for a jury exist as to: (1) whether Cochran violated Appellants' clearly established constitutional rights for purposes of his individual qualified immunity defense to the § 1988 claim; and (@)whether … Whether Cochran is entitled to qualified immunity where his conduct violated Appellants' right to due process (a constitutional right), and that right was violated by Cochran when it was clearly established at the time of

Johnson v. Harris

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2024

“When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … support for the notion that the law is clearly established.”).6 Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Shelton-Denley is barred by qualified immunity.7 B.