Case law

Weiss v. Sawyer

28 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 19, 1997

Even if a Bivens claim were not precluded by the availability of statutory remedies, the moving Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. … The Plaintiff has not alleged conduct by the Defendants which violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v.

Avant v. Doke

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 3, 2024

If, however, qualified immunity is based on the law not being clearly established, the claims against the political entity may proceed.1 See Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kan., 997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir.1993); Watson v. … Audrain County, Missouri, 968 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir.2020)(“We hold only that the officers are immune from suit because they did not violate Ivey’s clearly established rights.

Croston v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2025

Breshears is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage because Croston has plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established law. … Therefore, the Court will assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis by looking to the full landscape of the law, including cases that neither party has identified. Myers.” Ramirez v.

White v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Tulsa County Office of District Attorney

250 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2002

, to address the issue of qualified immunity. … By contrast, "[t]he fate of an official with qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Id.

Anderson v. O'DONOGHUE

677 P.2d 648 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1983

The three legs of this proposition are: First, the previously quoted 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (f) is not an exception to the immunity established by section (a). … The statute clearly makes the federal government the defendant real party in interest. Contrarily, § 1089(f) speaks of individuals, using the word person.

Henry v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

478 P.2d 898 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1970

The opinion states: “This clearly establishes that the turnpike project is the property of the State of Oklahoma.” … Therein we said: “The right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is a public right and must not be treated as relinquished or conveyed away by inference or construction, and statutes must clearly permit the States

Butler v. Branscum

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 27, 2024

When a defendant claims qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … In any event, it is by no means “clearly established” that Branscum’s conduct as to the vehicular chase was a constitutional violation.4 Qualified immunity is appropriate as to the car chase.

Yarbrough v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

200 Okla. 402 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1947

Wardship with limited power over his property’ did not there ‘without more render (the Indian) immune from the common burden.’ … United States, above, in referring to earlier federal court decisions establishing and extending tax immunity in favor of the Indian and his privies: “None of these eases held, nor has this court ever decided, that congressional

Scribner v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 465 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 1913

What was known as the Court of Star Chamber was established in 1487, which was the successor to and which followed the precedents established by the ecclesiastical courts. … But the doctrine established in Texas, and which we intend to see enforced in Oklahoma, is that if a witness willfully swears falsely, immunity shall not be extended to him.

McCracken v. City of Lawton

648 P.2d 18 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1982

Businesses affected by the new ordinance — entertainment and service-related establishments — were to be severely restricted in their capacity to use land for the affected activities. … An affirmance of the allowance would clearly contravene the unequivocal grant of immunity statutorily conferred in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1981 § 155(1) 1 .

Cherokee Nation v. Nash

724 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2010

As explained above, a second-filed court may defer to the first-filed court to determine whether the second action qualifies for any “exceptions” to the first to file rule, see supra Part II.B, and the Court finds it proper … functions as a waiver of immunity in the D.C.

Serpik v. Marsee

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 6, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Gann v. … Because Plaintiff is obligated to identify legal authority that rendered his rights “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes and because he has failed to do so, Defendant Marsee is entitled to qualified immunity

Sargent v. Central National Bank & Trust Co. of Enid

62 O.B.A.J. 872 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1991

The Bank’s immunity from contractual liability hence depends upon whether § 24(Fifth) avails as a defense to the claim’s theory invoked. … WAS THE BANK ENTITLED TO § 24(FIFTH) IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW? A.

Canary v. Oklahoma Tax Commission

295 P.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 20, 1956

Clearly, only the income tax may be considered as an excise tax. … While this case is applicable only by analogy, yet it shows clearly that “The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.”

Nail v. City of Henryetta

67 O.B.A.J. 525 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 6, 1996

Clearly, the officer was acting within the scope of his employment when he arrested Nail and took him to jail. Although the officer denied that he shoved Nail during the arrest, the City does not dispute it. … Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought to be established.

Jones

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2026

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the

Special Indemnity Fund v. Bedford

64 O.B.A.J. 1421 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 4, 1993

The 1971 amendment of § 171 clearly expanded coverage to include prior adjudications of other states in determining whether a person was physically impaired as defined by § 171. … As construed here, § 171 does not affect the right, benefit, privilege, or immunities provided to the claimant in the prior Texas adjudication.

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.

White

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2026

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Clearly Established Law Even when a complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that

GJA v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services

347 P.3d 310 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2015

To do so would not only fail to conform to established precedent which refused to construe the OGT-CA as providing blanket immunity, but would also render the Constitutional protections afforded the citizens of this State … T 37 According to the petition, the children were not in the custody of DHS so as to implicate their clearly established constitutional right to be reasonably safe from harm when placed in the state's custody. 15 The employees