Case law

McNEELY v. STATE

422 P.3d 1272 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 24, 2018

Petitioner may be able to establish a factual basis for a Stand Your Ground defense; but she cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief of Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. Id . … Yet, the immunity created in section 1289.25 is a conditional immunity meaning that it applies only if certain factual elements are established. See, e.g., People v.

Staley v. City of Oilton

70 O.B.A.J. 2432 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 20, 1999

Supp.1993, §§ 216 et seq., establishes that the Act does afford the City of Oilton (“Oilton”) immunity under these facts. … In 1988, the CSSP program was established and immunity extended to all governmental providers, that is, governmental entities providing a qualified program. Participants could include municipalities.

SPANE v. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY

346 P.3d 437 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 2015

The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … [COCAA] should be de[-]designated at any point"; that termination of the community action agency status for COCAA has never been recommended; that ODOC has continually recognized COCAA as a community action agency; that qualifying

Felkins v. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System

116 P.3d 195 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 6, 2005

Some of Felkins military service time qualifies for enhanced retirement credits. … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081 , C.A.10 (Okla.) 2005: “The doctrine of qualified immunity, therefore, shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages arising from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims

Grayson v. State Ex Rel. Children's Hospital of Oklahoma

63 O.B.A.J. 3214 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1992

insufficient to establish it. … Pollay on the ground that he was protected by immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.Supp.1985 § 151 et seq.

CHIMENTO v. GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES

2023 OK 22 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2023

. ¶28 Defendants claim that the absolute privilege adopted in Kirschstein should apply instead of the qualified immunity outlined in § 363 and applied in Loven . … Additionally, Kirschstein did not involve an applicable statute, like § 363, establishing qualified immunity for statements made to the relevant administrative agency, nor were we bound in that case by a prior decision from

Ciempa v. Jones

745 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 23, 2010

There is a two-part test for qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the NGE is a religion entitled to RLUIPA protection. 39 Dkt. #42, at 33.

Moody v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

879 F. Supp. 2d 1275 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 17, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Province also invokes qualified immunity. … Qualified im *1289 munity provides that in the performance of discretionary functions, government officials will not be liable for their conduct unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional

Marlatt v. Murray County Jail

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Application of the summary judgment standard slightly differs where, as here, an individual defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity … To overcome this defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62-63 (2018).

COMANCHE NATION OF OKLAHOMA v. COFFEY

480 P.3d 271 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 17, 2020

THE ONLY WAY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COULD ASSERT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE UNDERLYING MATTER AND/OR ATTORNEY FEES IS IF THE PARTIES EXPRESSLY WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. ¶5 Historically, sovereign immunity must be clearly … Had this not involved questions of sovereign immunity, I could agree with the dissent that, the Coffey could qualify for an award as a prevailing party within the meaning of 12 O.S. 2011 §936. 20 The dissent discusses Professional

Estate of Cabelka Ex Rel. Cabelka v. Comanche County Hospital

75 O.B.A.J. 1212 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 2003

sovereign immunity, an attribute of government, upon a private entity. … We will uphold a statute unless "it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with our fundamental law."

REYNOLDS v. STATE

2022 OK CR 14 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 4, 2022

Here, the State has established with reasonable particularity that Reynolds's DVR system was password protected thereby establishing the existence of the password, and that Reynolds was the owner and sole operator of the … system thereby establishing his possession of the password and its authenticity.

Hughey v. Grand River Dam Authority

897 P.2d 1138 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 1, 1995

The Authority’s generation of electricity on the land in question — its only commercial activity established by this record— has not been shown to have any profit-related nexus to the admitted public’s presence upon the premises … The Legislature clearly did not intend that commercial activity unrelated to land/water use by invited guests be a bar to immunity.

Bryson v. MacY

611 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 30, 2009

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … She also asserts that she did not violate a clearly established law in effect at the time of the alleged violation.

CHIMENTO v. GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES

2023 OK 22 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2023

. ¶28 Defendants claim that the absolute privilege adopted in Kirschstein should apply instead of the qualified immunity outlined in § 363 and applied in Loven . … Additionally, Kirschstein did not involve an applicable statute, like § 363, establishing qualified immunity for statements made to the relevant administrative agency, nor were we bound in that case by a prior decision from

Caddell v. State ex rel. Department of Health

66 O.B.A.J. 1869 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 11, 1995

The federal government established this “account” for the benefit of qualifying agencies such as ODH. 3 The funds “spent” by ODH for vaccine ordered from CDC were not then, and never were, state funds — those funds were neither … Clearly, by taking advantage of the federal direct assistance grant funds to acquire DPT vaccine for use in this state, ODH served a very real public interest.

Lamont Independent School District 1-95 of Grant County v. Swanson

548 P.2d 215 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1976

The right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is not such a public right as to require waiver by statute clearly permitting the state to be sued. … By this opinion, the existence and amount of a liability insurance covering the negligent act sued upon is a material fact to establish waiver of governmental immunity to the extent of the insurance coverage only.

Kirschstein v. Haynes

788 P.2d 941 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 30, 1990

The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered. … Clearly, Moore was acting in the capacity of an attorney in assisting Kilgore with advice on how to secure the certificate and in procuring the affidavit. .

LIND v. BARNES TAG AGENCY

2018 OK 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 1, 2018

Supp. 2013 § 5 2 , merely codifies an established tenet that shareholders and corporate officers are afforded immunity to the same extent as an employer under workers' compensation law. … Under either law, Barnes must first qualify as Lind's employer before he can enjoy the benefits of the exclusive remedy.

Trant v. Oklahoma

874 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2012

Defendant Balzer has not satisfied her burden of establishing that this immunity is presently justified. … equivalent, Defendant Balzer’s Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiffs federal and state constitutional claims on the basis of qualified immunity is not presently warranted: It was clearly established that the First Amendment