Case law

Anderson v. Eichner

65 O.B.A.J. 4037 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1994

Only a few excerpts of the depositions on file below actually qualify as part of the record here. … Because our decision today establishes that these physicians, while practising medicine in the teaching institutions of the state, do not enjoy immunity from tort liability, we need not address any of these tendered issues

Neal v. Donahue

611 P.2d 1125 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 27, 1980

At the time that Amendment was adopted, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well established principle of common law, as well as as a principle of law expressly recognized and incorporated into the United States Constitution … Donahue failed to establish policies and procedures to provide for the following of the dictates and directives of the Juvenile Court.

Hooper by and Through Hooper v. Clements Food

694 P.2d 943 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 1985

The undisputed facts of this case establish that on August 20, 1981, the minor appellant’s father was the agent and employee of the appellee, Clements Food Company. … Martin, 676 P.2d 1366 (Okl.1984), we qualified the rule of parental immunity in vehicular negligence cases to allow an action for negligence arising from an automobile accident brought on behalf of an unemancipated child

West v. Jane Phillips Memorial Medical Center

404 P.3d 896 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 17, 2017

In civil actions for negligence which will'require the plaintiff to provide expert testimony to establish the breach of an applicable standard of - care, 12 O.S. … Drug abuse by a parent can qualify as both "abuse” and "neglect." See 10A O.S. 2011 1-1-105(2), (47)(b).

Sullins v. American Medical Response of Oklahoma, Inc.

72 O.B.A.J. 573 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 2001

injury as required by the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) 2 In support of its defense, AMR contended that as the designated operations contractor for EMSA, a public trust and a political subdivision under the GTCA, it qualified … The rules of statutory construction are well established.

Myers v. Lashley

44 P.3d 553 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2002

LASHLEY'S ALLEGEDLY IMPROPER - EVALUATIVE - TECHNIQUES, - FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE REPORTING STATUTES QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE A. … Lashley's immunity. _- Myers' - strategy choices plainly doomed this lawsuit. 122 Absent from the record are probative materials showing that Dr.

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Steve Bashore, Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 7

2026 OK AG 1 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 2026

Federal Constitutional Claims and Qualified Immunity. ¶12 While the GTCA may bar state law negligence claims, it does not preclude federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … A right is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is directly on point, "or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains."

Roberts v. Champion

255 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 27, 2003

A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless a “clearly established” federal right of which a reasonable person would have known is shown to have been violated. See Hunter v. … Thus, the test for qualified immunity is two-fold: (1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established, and (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful? Id.

State Ex Rel. Williamson v. Garrison

348 P.2d 859 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 16, 1959

The fact that net profit from its operations will be passed on to an agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State, does not, in our opinion, tend to establish that a city or a town which accepts beneficial … the fact that the trust may operate in perpetuity and the further fact that the beneficiaries are attempting to surrender their power to regulate the charges made by trust for its services, the beneficiaries are in fact clearly

Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth.

432 P.3d 233 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2018

McKnight explained Oklahoma's sovereign immunity from a legal action in an Oklahoma court is based upon Oklahoma statutes, and a statute must clearly permit the state to be sued or the right to do so will not exist 1 In McKnight … Constitution. 19 The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well-established principle of common law at the time the Oklahoma Constitution was created. 20 Limiting tort claims for damages against the State to those allowed

STRICKLAND v. STEPHENS PRODUCTION COMPANY

411 P.3d 369 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 23, 2018

In considering a statute's constitutionality, "courts are guided by well-established principles, and a heavy burden is cast on those challenging a legislative enactment to show its unconstitutionality." … In order for another employer on the same job as the injured or deceased worker to qualify as an intermediate or principal employer, the work performed by the immediate employer must be directly associated with the day to

Blackburn v. Town of Bokchito

270 P.3d 226 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 2011

Plaintiff contends that construing the statute in a way that "provides blanket immunity in cases like this would produce an 'absurd consequence' that is clearly not intended by the Legislature when viewed in light of 47 0.8 … Until the waiver of sovereign immunity as enacted in the GTCA, the State enjoyed absolute immunity.

Washington v. Anderson

387 F. Supp. 412 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1974

Plaintiff has been seen numerous times by a qualified medical doctor. … D.Mo.1971) holds: “Neither can it be said to be unreasonable to resort to the judicious use of mace to regain control and establish order after lesser means have failed.”

Beard v. Viene

63 O.B.A.J. 605 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1992

As qualified by our analysis below, we answer in the affirmative and hold that, under the principle of comity, Oklahoma will recognize a limitation on the municipal tort liability of a sister state. … Title 51 O.S.Supp.1988 § 154(A)(1) establishes a $25,000.00 cap on the recoverability by any one person for property damage arising out of a single transaction. 5 In addition, 51 O.S.Supp.1988 § 154(A)(2) establishes a $100,000.00

Scott v. City of Minco

393 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 25, 2005

Although Defendants make an argument under the heading “qualified immunity,” they do not make a qualified immunity claim. … It is not a part of the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Wulf, 883 F.2d at 864 (first determining whether the sheriff could be personally liable before proceeding into a qualified immunity analysis).

O'BAUGH v. Drilling Well Control, Inc.

609 P.2d 355 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 25, 1980

Their peculiar status, we held in those cases, qualified them under 85 O.S. 1971 § 44 as “another not in the same employ”. … This is apparent from our case-law which clearly affords immunity to co-employees who can never bear either primary or secondary liability for compensation.

Howard v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

247 F. Supp. 3d 1210 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2017

ADAAA Discrimination and Retaliation Alternatively, Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on Howard’s ADAAA claim because he is not a “qualified individual” with a disability and has not established a prima … Thus, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADAAA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled as defined under the ADAAA; (2) he is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation by the employer

Guthery v. State

24 Okla. Crim. 183 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 28, 1923

by promises of immunity, and for such reasons was clearly inadmissible. … Under no circumstances, therefore, would he be entitled to immunity from prosecution under the provisions of section 27, art. 2, of the Constitution, and no plea of immunity was interposed in bar of the prosecution.

Hogan v. Zletz

43 F.R.D. 308 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1967

Natta et al has clearly established that the information is not otherwise available in Appendix A to the Memorandum of the Party Natta et al etc., as filed August 22, 1966. … immunity of “work product.”

Bishop v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Edmondson

447 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 16, 2006

In order to qualify for a civil union, a person must not *1247 be a party to another civil union or a marriage. See id. § 1202. … Therefore, Barton and Phillips’s legal status is clearly something more than a domestic partnership.