Case law

Davis v. Core Civic, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 19, 2020

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields governmental officials from personal liability unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The protection of qualified immunity gives officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.” Holland ex rel. Overdorff v.

MAXWELL v. SPRINT PCS

369 P.3d 1079 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2016

Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. ' Arbitrary or capricious; T. … The: Claimant qualified for the maximum rate of temporary total disability compensation, but Goodyear paid the claimant her regular wages, which were at a higher rate than that required by statute.

Banks

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 17, 2026

Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Assessment of Whether an Entity Qualifies as an Arm of the State “Whether a defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment . … Whether Epic Is an Arm of the State Defendant argues that analysis of the relevant factors establishes that it is an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Sherman-Harris-Golson v. Forest Park Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 1, 2021

law; and (2) the law was clearly established when the violation occurred. … Like Milton, Gipson and Richmond have raised the defense of qualified immunity. Golson posits that she has sufficiently alleged facts to establish that defendants violated her equal protection rights.

Opinion No. 69-246 (1969) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 23, 1969

The rules referred to obviously designate a basis upon which any Oklahoma bank might qualify as a depository. … Thus. the manifest purpose of the rules is to establish criteria for selection of Oklahoma banks as depositories in order that any bank in the State might have an equal opportunity to qualify as a depository.

Opinion No. 68-117 (1968) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 15, 1968

The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV , Section 1 , provides in relevant part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any … The court held: "The pattern of misrepresentation as to available housing was clearly and fully established.

Fenwick v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary

792 P.2d 60 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 15, 1990

In fact, the Act has been amended annually since the establishment of this rule. In Lekan v. … We are not free to bestow greater immunity from liability on employers or greater benefits on employees than the statute allows.

Dawkins v. Billingsley

69 Okla. 259 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1918

that the trial court should not have sustained the demurrer to the evidence, while the defendant in error contends that, inasmuch as there was no malice upon the part of the defendant below, and the publication being a qualified … The evidence here clearly established that the words written by the defendant below concerning the plaintiff were defamatory, and, the same being within the class designated as a privileged publication, the evidence was sufficient

Birge v. United States

111 F. Supp. 685 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 27, 1953

Statutes waiving .the immunity to suit, are strictly construed and Congress .may'grant the , right with whatever restrictions it. deems’ proper. [Citing cases.] … A certain presumption exists that the administrative officer went into the question thoroughly and in good faith to determine whether or not the plaintiff qualified for ’ this added insurance.

Dotson v. State

739 P.2d 538 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 7, 1987

The offense of second degree burglary was overwhelmingly established, and there was no evidence to support an instruction on a lesser included offense. This assignment of error lacks merit. … Clearly, the hammer had probative value, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it for the jury to consider whether in fact the hammer was used to break the windows. Haury v.

Valley View Development, Inc. v. United States Ex Rel. United States Army Corps of Engineers

721 F. Supp. 2d 1024 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 14, 2010

Because it represents a waiver of immunity from suit, the limitations period “is strictly construed in favor of the United States.” Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 599 F.3d at 1176 . … he is not an expert in soil morphology; (2) he is not qualified to offer opinions regarding the meaning or scope of the easement because he is not a land surveyor; (3) he is not qualified to explain land surveying done by

Vinson v. Medley

737 P.2d 932 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1987

At trial it was established that the proposed well site was situated adjacent to the Hardy Acres housing addition where the homeowner resided. … A granted variance will be accorded great weight and will not be disturbed when it has been affirmed on appeal by a district court unless it is clearly arbitrary or erroneous.

SMITH v. HAMMOND & ASSOCIATES

2015 OK CIV APP 73 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 2015

The alleged malpractice harm (loss of Smith's bankruptcy homestead exemption) and thus damage to Smith occurred when Hammond filed her bankruptcy before Smith had established two-year residency in Oklahoma to qualify for … Smith could not qualify for the exemptions.'" Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document Cite Name Level None Found.

Alexander v. Salazar

739 F. Supp. 2d 1333 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2010

Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58-59 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 , 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978), the Supreme Court recognized that Indian tribes, as sovereigns, possess immunity from suit and it held that, in light of such immunity, the ICRA does not … The one exception to this holding is the ICRA’s waiver of tribal immunity as to habeas corpus actions. Id.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Dawson Produce Co.

180 Okla. 119 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 18, 1937

It is not conclusive as to facts which are not in issue or not determined in the former action, and if the facts through which the indemnitee claims indemnity were not litigated or clearly determined they may be litigated … Its determination of that question is now final and immune from collateral attack. In the briefs the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Whitt, 167 Okla. 261 , 29 P. (2d) 65 , is mentioned.

Opinion No. (1995)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Oct 12, 1995

once again examining the nature of the Fund, the Court concluded that the Fund was not protected by traditional sovereign immunity. … freeze in hiring," are part of the Oklahoma Personnel Act, and because that Act defines "agency" to include "department[s]" of the State, id. at § 840-1.3(1), such as the State Insurance Fund, and further because it was clearly

Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 4, 2000

McKenzie does not qualify as an expert to testify as to the causation of Plaintiffs ailments. Dr. … There are two exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma — mass immunizations and situations where the FDA has mandated that warning be given directly to the consumer — neither of which is applicable here

Armstrong v. City of Arnett

708 F. Supp. 320 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 7, 1989

Plaintiff’s alleged support for the incumbent Trustees in the 1987 election clearly falls within the ambit of the First Amendment. 2 See Joyner v. … Because the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants as a matter of law, we do not reach the issue of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity raised by Defendants Freeman, Dishen, and Spencer.

Oklahoma City v. Prieto

482 P.2d 919 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 1971

All other parts of the 1965 Act refer to “governmental function” and “governmental immunity.” … Article 5, § 57, of the Oklahoma Constitution provides in part that “Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, * * *.”

Byers v. Byers

618 P.2d 930 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1980

The doctrine of equitable adoption is clearly inapposite. … It requires evidence of a binding contract for adoption whose existence must be established by clear and convincing proof. 7 No offer was made to show facts tending to establish a contract amounting to an equitable adoption