Case law

Deffenbaugh v. Hudson

791 P.2d 84 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 17, 1990

Whatever distinctions may be drawn between Carroll and the instant controversy, none of them warrants departure from the precedent established in that case. … We hold that under the Travelers rationale these factors are clearly insufficient for piercing the insured’s § 12 defense. D.

Oklahoma Observer v. Patton

73 F. Supp. 3d 1318 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 19, 2014

The relief sought here is within the scope of Ex parte Young and plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. … If both elements are present, a qualified right of public access attaches to the process or proceeding. Id. at 9 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 .

Opinion No. Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 4, 1986

OPINION — AG — ** LIVING WILL — DEATH — TERMINATION — ATTENDING PHYSICIANS ** (1) IN ORDER FOR AN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN TO BE AFFORDED THE LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS AND PROTECTIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE OKLAHOMA NATURAL DEATH ACT, 63 … (IMMUNITY, TORT, "TERMINAL CONDITION", LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM (MICHAEL SCOTT FERN) CITE: 21 O.S. 813 [ 21-813 ], 21 O.S. 818 [ 21-818 ], 63 O.S. 3102 [ 63-3102 ](7), 63 O.S. 3102 [ 63-3102 ](8), 63 O.S. 2103 [ 63-2103 ], 63

Shapard v. State

437 P.2d 565 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1967

Lackey, supra, clearly distinguishes it from the instant case: “1. … State, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 542 , we held that immunity could be granted only when a charge is pending against an accused and the witness to whom immunity is granted has evidence tending to establish the guilt of the accused

Carlson v. United States Ex Rel. United States Postal Service

248 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2003

However, immunity from tort liability is only given to those employers falling within the “vertical chain of immunity,” as prescribed in 85 O.S. § 11 and defined in 85 O.S. § 12, i.e., who are either the immediate employer … under Murphy , despite the fact that USPS clearly meets all three parts of the Bradley test.

Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

64 O.B.A.J. 995 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 30, 1993

as passengers in a covered vehicle may not stack the uninsured motorist coverage under separate policies purchased by the owner of the involved vehicle for a noninvolved vehicle or vehicles unless those passengers also qualified … In so ruling, however, we recognized that those qualifying as insureds by reason of their status as passengers or permissive users in the covered vehicle would be entitled to recover under the UM endorsement for the vehicle

Williams v. State

678 P.2d 259 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 6, 1984

While operating as an arm of the state, the hospital will continue to be protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 1 The holding in Neal stands supported by the Oklahoma Constitution and Statutes which clearly identify … Our constitution requires that the Legislature establish mental health facilities for the benefit of the people. Okla. Const. art. 21 § 1.

Griggs v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Transportation

702 P.2d 1017 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 1985

It stands for the general common-law norm that an overruling precedent is to be applied retroactively. 14 The law clearly admits of an exception to this general rule when overruling precedent is declared to be nonretroactive … either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or on an issue of first impression whose decision is not clearly foreshadowed; (2) the court must weigh the merits and demerits of applying the

McIntire v. Bethel School, Independent School District No. 3

804 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1992

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds as a motion for summary judgment. See M.S. News Co. v. … is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the'time of the violation and that the defendant’s conduct violated the law.

Dixon v. State

89 Okla. Crim. 205 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 4, 1949

The evidence herein is wholly insufficient to support such a contention, in fact, it clearly establishes due process of law, not a denial thereof. The situation confronting us is not such as was presented in Holland v. … It is harmless for the reason that the other evidence offered by the state clearly and sufficiently establishes the charge as laid against the defendant, without the aid of the confession.

Gooding v. Ketcher

838 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 19, 2012

Cnty. of Price, 834 F.Supp. 305, 309 (W.D.Wisc.1993) (noting that “[i]n light of [Johnson ], ... it was clearly established as a matter of constitutional law that persons using the American flag to express political opinions … Winsness and Koser discussed Johnson and Eichman in the context of whether defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

TASSO v. LUCKY STAR CASINO

512 P.3d 374 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2022

Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence; 6. Arbitrary or capricious; 7. Procured by fraud; or 8. … And, as Employer argues, Claimant has not explained, if he in fact established this prohibition, why it would make Employer or Insurer any less immune from this suit than they actually are. II.

Gilchrist v. OKL. EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N

94 P.3d 72 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 2004

Much like commercial speech, [18] testimony must always conform to the reality of established facts. … liability in damages for giving harmful testimony in judicial proceedings was established early in the English common law.

Richardson v. Smith

394 P.2d 480 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1964

It appears that the great weight of authority is that such privilege exists in favor of qualified persons appearing in many kinds of proceedings not strictly judicial in nature. See Annotation, 35 A.L.R.2d 1354 . … The request of the Administrator that petitioner attend the hearing fixed his connection or relation to the proceeding and established that his voluntary attendance was considered by the Administrator to be necessary or convenient

BARRIOS v. HASKELL COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY FOUTCH v. TURN KEY HEALTH

2018 OK 90 · 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 … 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

Brewer Ex Rel. Brewer v. Independent School District 1

64 O.B.A.J. 661 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 2, 1993

State, 672 P.2d *569 1153 (Okla.1983), had not yet erased the doctrine of judicially established sovereign immunity. … Clearly the plaintiffs cannot proceed on their theory of failure to inspect.

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 2, 1990

(1981), p. 909, as a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage or favor. … believe that Oklahoma's courts would reach the same result. ¶ 7 By requiring that the individuals nominated be members of the nominating association, such statutes may aid in ensuring that the most informed and professionally qualified

In Re Conservancy District No. 5, Lincoln County

471 P.2d 879 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1970

The order establishing the Conservancy District creates no liability or liens and imposes no taxes. … Only the owner of the legal title is qualified as a petitioner.

Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham

609 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 24, 2009

The Court accordingly finds that Crowe’s suit is not defeated by judicial immunity, as it clearly seeks “prospective injunctive relief.” See Pulliam, 466 U.S. at 541 — 42, 104 S.Ct. 1970 . 3 2. … Prairie Island Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Cmty., 991 F.2d 458 , 460 (8th Cir.1993) (“The protection of sovereign immunity is subject to the well established exception described in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 , 28 S.Ct

Opinion No. (1986)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 1986

In a case where a city and/or county is the sole owner and operator of a hospital, do the limits set on waiver of immunity established in the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 151 et seq. (1985), apply? 2. … Under this provision, the immunity established, and the limited waivers of that immunity are applicable, inter alia , to the state and its political subdivisions .