Case law

Cowan v. State

38 Okla. Crim. 399 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 7, 1928

It is first argued that the information is insufficient; *402 that it fails to clearly disclose whether the prosecution is based on the general larceny statute, or on the special statute (section 2116, Comp. … The' reasonable inferences arising from the circumstances proyen conclusively establish the guilt of defendant. We see no reason to disturb the judgment. The case is affirmed. DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

RULES OF STATE BD. OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED COURTROOM INTERPRETERS

2015 OK 2 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2015

Provisional status, or a similar credential from another state court which, in the discretion of the Board, establishes the candidate is qualified for provisional status in Oklahoma, or iii. … Rule 24, Immunity Cited Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite Name Level None Found.

Kemp

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The burden is on Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Tipton’s assertion of qualified immunity by showing the asserted right was “clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.”

North Side State Bank v. Board of County Commissioners

65 O.B.A.J. 1195 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1994

Summary judgment materials of record clearly and conclusively establish that, at the time of the critical voucher’s issuance, the Court Clerk did not stand vis-a-vis the Board in an agent/principal relationship. … Fitzsimmons, - U.S. -,-, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 2615-16 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993) (for a qualified immunity of the prosecutor). 17 . McCracken, supra note 14 , 648 P.2d at 20 ; Allen, infra note 20, 769 P.2d at 1309 . 18 .

Unah by and Through Unah v. Martin

676 P.2d 1366 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 21, 1984

The doctrine established in this triology of cases became popular to protect not only the interests of the family, but likewise where liability insurance was available, to protect the insurer against collusive actions between … We hereby qualify the rule of parental immunity in this jurisdiction to allow an action for negligence arising from an automobile accident brought on behalf of an unemancipated minor child against a parent to the extent of

Smart v. United States

111 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 30, 1953

The sole and unqualified authority to make these decisions must *911 he vested in those government employees who alone know all the circumstances and ■are specifically qualified to act. … Immunity must attach to their discretion thus exercised.

In Re Oklahoma Development Finance Authority

89 P.3d 1075 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 3, 2004

Supp.2002 § 3654(M) 6 . *1080 Section 3660 of the Act provides that if the establishment should cease to qualify for an incentive payment and if the withholding tax collections from the establishment are not sufficient to … The Act requires adequate consideration and accountability from the qualifying establishments in exchange for the expenditure of public funds.

Revilla v. Glanz

8 F. Supp. 3d 1336 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2014

The unavailability of qualified immunity for these employees is a deterrent against such conduct, but respondeat superior liability for the [private] employer itself is likely to be more effective at deterring such actions … Thus, the Healthcare Defendants argue that they are immune from suit under Okla.

Harting v. Benham Engineering Company

519 P.2d 932 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 29, 1974

The court further held that immunity extended to the architects because they were the agents of the primary employer (Rockwell) who was immune from common law liability. … Any acts of negligence were, therefore, directly attributable to Rockwell which we have held to be immune from the asserted liability.”

SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATER

328 P.3d 1192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 20, 2014

If any set of facts can be established which is consistent with the allegations, a motion to dismiss should be denied. … In summation: Exemptions 4, 5, and 6, when read together with this Court's explanations, define clearly the scope of statutory immunity concerning law enforcement.

ODOM v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.

2018 OK 23 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 2018

Again, the Legislature clearly and specifically addressed the scope of the exclusive remedy/immunity rule and an exception therefrom. ¶7 The statutory language addressing the exclusive remedy rule and immunity provided by … not clearly and explicitly provide.

Warner

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 21, 2026

Absent such authority, the right is not “clearly established.” Therefore, Detective Hall is entitled to qualified immunity[.] … rights were clearly established at the time.”

German-American Ins. Co. v. Huntley

62 Okla. 39 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 12, 1916

In actions for libel and slander the doctrine of qualified privilege has been recognized and established in this jurisdiction by the following cases: Tuohy v. Halsell, 35 Okla. 61 , 128 Pac. 126 , 43 L. R. A. (N. … In neither of the foregoing instructions, nor elsewhere in the charge, did the court submit to the jury the single defense of qualified privilege which was clearly -an issue and concerning which the testimony was conflicting

Yang v. Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 2, 2025

raise a qualified immunity defense. Id. … Regardless of the conduct at issue, a defendant is “entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff has carried her burden of showing the law was clearly established.” Ullery v.

Hooper v. Clinkingbeard

64 O.B.A.J. 813 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 16, 1993

The determination of legislative intent controls judicial statutory interpretation. 16 However, it is unnecessary to apply rules of construction to discern Legislative intent if the will is clearly expressed. 17 Pursuant … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Rhinehart v. Hughes County School District No. 32-1005

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2025

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known. … Furthermore, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

McCathern v. City of Oklahoma City

75 O.B.A.J. 1914 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2004

§ 155(13) text do not explicitly fashion greater defenses against premises liability claims than those which stand established by the common law. … If the common law is to be abrogated or modified, it must be done by creation of clearly expressed legislative immunity, not by the court’s fiat.

Burris

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

In the qualified-immunity context, “[i]n determining whether the plaintiff has met [his] burden of establishing a constitutional violation that was clearly established, [courts] construe the facts in the light most favorable … Burris’s conduct was clearly established, and Sgt. Burris is thus entitled to qualified immunity. II. Probable Cause Sgt.

Edelen v. Board of Commissioners

266 P.3d 660 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 2011

functions, shall be immune from liability for torts." 51 0.98.2001 § 152.1(A). … There were no facts in that case establishing that any defective county policy or custom resulted in the denial of medical care, or that the sheriffs established policy for Crowell was defective.

Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa

74 O.B.A.J. 954 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2003

The state action immunity doctrine will protect a municipality’s anti-competitive conduct from federal antitrust liability only where 1) there is a clearly expressed state policy to displace competition with municipal regulation … state itself, the Act clearly expresses a legislative intent to subject municipalities to its proscriptive reach.