Case law

Allen v. State Ex Rel. Board of Trustees of the Oklahoma Uniform Retirement System for Justices & Judges

769 P.2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 1988

The government is statutorily immune from damages incurred in the exercise of its adjudicative capacity. 36 The function’s classification depends on the act involved. 37 Because of the State’s immunity the claimant is not … (the URSJJ statutes) and (c) have retired on or after June 29, 1981, the effective date of the Act, and the surviving spouses of deceased members who qualify for retirement benefits with the exception of those members or

Serpik v. Marsee

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

As noted above, Defendant Hartman raises the defense of qualified immunity, which “shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Jorgensen v. Oklahoma Juvenile Affairs Office

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 26, 2019

that Aage’s alleged constitutional right was clearly established.4 The court therefore concludes that the claim is subject to dismissal based upon qualified immunity.5 As to the visitation claim, the court finds that … the claim is also subject to dismissal based upon qualified immunity.

TORRES v. SEABOARD FOODS, LLC

373 P.3d 1057 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 1, 2016

Employer.expands upon this latter principle and argues that the Legislature has the power to determine what type of injury "qualifies as [a] compensable injury ... … project, but this immunity shall not extend to the negligent preparation of design plans and specifications.

Ex Parte Patman

20 Okla. 846 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1908

It would seem to have long since been much too well established by the common law as well as our statutes that an indictment not void upon its face, regularly returned to and pending in a court having jurisdiction thereof … Where shall the party charged with a crime by indictment plead such immunity?

In Re Biggers

24 Okla. 842 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 20, 1909

as will preclude this court from disbarring respondent on account of such transaction, although such dereliction is established otherwise than through fhe evidence or admissions of said respondent. … We are clearly of opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution after he answers the criminating questions put to him can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution

Huff v. State

764 P.2d 183 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1988

I SECTION 155(14) IMMUNITY Relying on the provisions of 51 O.S. … ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT; ... MODIFYING AND ADDING EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY. ..." [Emphasis added.] 22 .

Rodriguez 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.

Woodfork v. Whitten

District 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.

Olupitan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 1, 2025

Plaintiff’s clearly established rights occurred. … Violation of a Clearly Established Right “Although qualified immunity defenses are typically resolved at the summary judgment stage, district courts may grant motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified

Fox 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

Ex Parte Patman

1 Okla. Crim. 141 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1908

It would seem to have long since been much too well established by the common law as well as our statutes that an indictment not void upon its face, regularly returned to and pending in a court having jurisdiction thereof … Where shall the party charged with a crime by indictment plead such immunity?

Garland v. Redeagle

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2021

Qualified Immunity Standard at the Motion to Dismiss Stage Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … “Although qualified immunity defenses are typically resolved at the summary judgment stage, district courts may grant motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.” Myers v.

Hill v. Brown

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 12, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in a §1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. See Perez v. … violate clearly established law.

Blackwell

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 6, 2026

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

State v. Lynch

61 O.B.A.J. 2102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 24, 1990

Const, art. 2, § 7 as well as the immunities clause of the Okla. Const, art. 5, § 51. … guides which will apply uniformly without either violating due process rights or granting constitutional immun-ites.

Wah-Tsa-E-O-She v. Webster

69 Okla. 257 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1918

Section 1, art. 3, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, provides: “The qualified electors of the state shall be male citizens of the United States, male citizens of the state, and male persons of, Indian descent … Clearly, it was the purpose and intent of Congress and of the peoule of the proposed state in the erection of the state and in creating its government that these Indians should become citizens thereof.

Rodriguez 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 3A qualified immunity defense is only available to parties sued in their individual capacities. Beedle v. … In the context of qualified immunity, the issue is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. See Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015).

State v. Brooks

763 P.2d 707 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1988

The United States Supreme Court has clearly espoused its view of states’ attempts to impose their taxes on Indians: [I]n the special area of state taxation, absent cession of jurisdiction or other federal statutes permitting … Examples of those situations in which a state would be authorized to assert jurisdiction over otherwise immune tribal activities are found in Moe v.

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2020

When a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation – i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity precludes … a determination that the law was not clearly established.