Case law

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

Silagyi v. Independent School District No 12

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2023

The Court may consider both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis even though Defendants’ arguments focus on the “clearly established” prong. … Moreover, for purposes of the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity (discussed below), the block quote Plaintiffs cite is insufficient to “create a clearly established weight of authority.” Sandberg v.

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Halley ex rel. J.H. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

176 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This law was clearly established by 2014. See, e.g., Estate of B.I.C. v.

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Caviness v. Johnson

614 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2008

Caviness also challenges Johnson’s claim to qualified immunity, contending the law was clearly established that excessive damage to his property can give rise to a constitutional claim and that the seizure of the knives and … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish that a defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Opinion No. 91-562 (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1991

A COUNTY MAY NEVERTHELESS ESTABLISH IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY, IF IT CAN ESTABLISH FACT THAT WOULD ENTITLE IT TO ONE OF SEVERAL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE ACT. … FURTHER, IMMUNITY FOR INCORPORATED CASA ORGANIZATIONS COULD ALSO BE MORE CLEARLY CONFERRED BY AMENDING THE RELEVANT PROVISION TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IMMUNITY FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR THE INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ITSELF

Lambert v. Town of Stringtown

63 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1992

They sought summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. The trial court overruled their motion and the defendants appealed. … The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Douglas v. Miller

864 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … clearly established at the time.”

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Batton v. Mashburn

107 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2015

Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known.” … Because Plaintiff has alleged the violation of his right of association and this right was clearly established at the time of his termination, Mashburn is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim. 5 B

Madden v. Regional University System

73 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 24, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Maher ex rel. Estate of Maher v. Oklahoma ex rel. Tourism & Recreation Department

165 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 29, 2016

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’ ” Wood v. … Qualified Immunity The Court must still consider whether Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome Defendant Young’s defense of qualified immunity.

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

Martin v. City of Oklahoma City

180 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2016

Plaintiffs Claim of Retaliatory Arrest The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs claim of retaliatory arrest because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an individual … D.Plaintiff’s Claim of Conspiracy The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs conspiracy claim because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an evidentiary cover-up

Romero v. City of Miami

8 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Anderson The Individual Defendants argue that City Attorney Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, they argue that Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law which prohibits a city attorney from providing advice to a municipality regarding the legality of a random drug

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 1998

Qualified immunity sometimes is erroneously referred to as "good faith immunity." Before Harlow v. … Id. at 818-19 . ¶ 13 In its place, stands qualified immunity, which is a two-pronged, objective test: Does the plaintiff assert violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and was that right clearly established