Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,409 results
1.14s
Tesh v. United States Postal Service
215 F. Supp. 2d 1220 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 26, 2002
Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity....” Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 414 , 99 S.Ct. 1182 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979). … Defendants are, therefore, as they explicitly state in their reply brief, asserting a sovereign immunity argument. The defense of sovereign immunity implicates the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. E.F.W. v. St.
Cited 5 timesPublished429 P.2d 542 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1967
This was clearly indicated by defense counsel, as is reflected by pg. 32 of the transcript where the jurisdiction was first questioned. … to a witness appearing before a grand jury; (b) authorize the granting of immunity to a witness appearing before a Legislative Committee acting within the scope of its constitutional authority; and, (c) granting immunity
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2026
right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The Tenth Circuit found that “merely recit[ing] the qualified immunity legal standard” and stating “in a single sentence, without citation to any legal authority” that “no clearly established law demonstrates [the alleged
Cited 0 timesUnknownHolt v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Department of Transportation
67 O.B.A.J. 3447 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 20, 1996
State acknowledged sovereign immunity for torts committed by its employees had been generally waived by 51 O.S.1991 § 152.1, but asserted it retained immunity under the facts here in accordance with the exemptions from waiver … Even more clearly, the exempt “temporary or natural conditions on any public way or other public place” must expressly be due to weather conditions.
Cited 7 timesPublished184 Okla. 577 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1939
The rule as to immunity in the adoption of a plan applies only to governmental functions. … Clearly enough we cannot say that all reasonable men would come to the conclusion that the placing of the pole at that point was the exercise of reasonable care.
Cited 6 timesPublishedCity of Duncan Ex Rel. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension & Retirement System v. Barnes
293 P.2d 590 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 7, 1956
Plaintiff takes the position that upon establishment of a pension system it automatically qualified to receive the funds in defendant’s hands. … Clearly, following the adjudication establishing unconstitutionality of the statutes, no funds were derived from the assessment of additional costs.
Cited 7 timesPublished21 Okla. 711 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1908
It very clearly attempts to extend an existing law by reference to its title onty. … This distinction we will endeavor to draw more clearly as we proceed.
Cited 62 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 24, 1990
The legislature may have wished to encourage people to enter public service or it may have wished to encourage qualified people to remain in public service even after they have gained valuable experience for which they might … Clearly, the granting of a slight tax benefit to public retirees bears the necessary "fair and substantial" relation to these legitimate state goals. Id. In fact, in Richards v.
Cited 0 timesPublished311 F. Supp. 1121 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1969
It concluded: “We cannot agree with O’Bryan’s contentions that Judge Chandler’s conduct was clearly in absence of any jurisdiction * * *.” Id at p. 989. … The moving party has established this clear absence to the satisfaction of the Court. The opposing party has suggested factual disputes which this Court finds neither material nor of a substantial nature.
Reversed on other grounds by Stephen S. Chandler, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma v. William H. Pat O'Bryan, 445 F.2d 1045 (1971)Cited 8 timesPublished147 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1930
The first provision would seem to lay a tax upon any property or interest therein, but this is qualified in the latter provision and clearly defined to be the transfer of tangible property in this state or of intangible property … The inevitable tendency of that view is to disturb good relations among the states and produce the kind of discontent expected to subside after establishment of the Union. The Federalist, No. VII.
Cited 6 timesPublishedAltstatt v. Board Of County Commissioners for Oklahoma County
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 25, 2023
the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … In response to the Trustees’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff argues in full as follows: “The right to protection from harm from other inmates has been ‘clearly established’ for decades.
Cited 0 timesUnknownState Ex Rel. State Insurance Fund v. JOA, Inc.
78 P.3d 534 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 8, 2003
Id. at 129, We concluded therein that the action in that case was not in tort, and thus not barred by an immunity established by the Governmental Tort Claims Act. Id. at 115. … Governmental immunity is established by statute. Vander-pool v. State, 1988 OK 82 , 672 P.2d 1153, 1157 . The Fund must point to some statute that creates this immunity to paying attorney's fees.
Cited 21 timesPublished189 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jan 23, 2002
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity The United States is generally immune from suit unless it expressly waives immunity and consents to be sued. United States v. … In this case, the court clearly has original jurisdiction under the FTCA with respect to Plaintiffs negligence claim against Carl Albert.
Cited 0 timesPublishedStewart v. Oklahoma City City of
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2020
§ 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”22 When the defense of qualified immunity is invoked, the … conduct.”23 If the plaintiff fails to make either showing, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.24 But “[i]f the plaintiff indeed demonstrates that the [defendant] violated a clearly established violation
Cited 0 timesUnknownRodriguez v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners
District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2022
A constitutional right is clearly established if it is sufficiently clear that every reasonable 2A qualified immunity defense is only available to parties sued in their individual capacities. Beedle v. … The question is not whether a “broad general proposition” was clearly established, but whether the violative nature of particular conduct was clearly established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 8, 2021
When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … “clearly established” element.
Cited 0 timesUnknown742 P.2d 1107 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 21, 1987
The Oklahoma State Legislature has clearly mani *1112 fested an intent that a worker who takes steps to assure his financial security shall not be penalized. … Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773, 778-779 (11th Cir.1985), governmental immunity; Dodson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 649 F.Supp. 1455, 1457-1460 (E.D.Va.1986), workers’ compensation immunity; Watkins v.
Cited 45 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 3, 2025
Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Turner v. Okla. Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs., 804 F. … Clearly Established Next, the court considers whether the constitutional right was clearly established as of April 19, 2023.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWillis v. Oklahoma County Detention Center
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2022
to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Right To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must additionally show that Johnson’s actions violated clearly established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFox v. Oklahoma Memorial Hospital
774 P.2d 459 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1989
II THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT SHIELD STATE EMPLOYEES FROM TORT LIABILITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE. … suffering and loss of earnings were a direct result of the gross negligence and reckless, wilful and wanton conduct of the hospital physicians and staff. 5 Fox also presented medical testimony that the 6V2 inch clamp was clearly
Cited 35 timesPublished
Ask Donna