Case law

Davis v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises

76 O.B.A.J. 40 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 25, 2004

Employer argued it was immune from litigation, absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity by the tribe or Congressional action permitting the suit. … Sanders, No. 99,485 at 8.09 ‘ {13 Based on the rationale set forth in Sanders, and after examination of the record presented, including the policy of insurance, this Court finds the workers' compensation court clearly erred

McCoy

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 3, 2026

based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff “must allege facts sufficient to show (assuming they are true) that the defendants plausibly violated their constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established … not address Lysinger’s qualified immunity defense.

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County

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

In addition, Anthony has asserted qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity also applies to supervisory liability in §1983 cases.” Turner v. Okla. Co. Bd. of Co. Comm., 804 Fed.Appx. 921, 925 (10th Cir.2020). … Where a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly

MOORE v. WARR ACRES NURSING CENTER, LLC.

2016 OK 28 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 2016

The answer is overwhelmingly and clearly yes. ¶21 In Silver v. … side effects of the immunization; (ii) Each resident is offered an influenza immunization October 1 through March 31 annually, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized

Skinner v. State

210 P.3d 840 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 2009

Hopefully the analysis herein will help avoid this kind of wasted time and effort in the future, in cases where, despite a witness's earlier Fifth Amendment- *852 based immunity, the cireumstances clearly reveal that the … See id. at ¶¶ 10-25, 130 P.3d at 277-83 ; see also 21 O.S., §§ 12.1 and 13.1 {establishing the "85% Rule"). 85 .

Markham v. Rios

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 27, 2019

To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’”

Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 18, 2024

Defendants also seek dismissal of the §1983 claim based on qualified immunity. … (emphasis in original) 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

Willis 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 Newkirk’s actions violated clearly established law.

Krimbill v. Talarico

439 P.3d 447 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 3, 2018

Further, the Act states that it will not "abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case or common law or rule provisions." OCPA § 1440. … One aim of the OCPA is clearly to provide a quick and simple process for weeding out meritless suits in the early stages of litigation.

Walker v. Anderson

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 26, 2023

- established law.” … Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123, 1139-40 (10th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity determination is governed by a standard of arguable probable cause, and officer will be entitled to qualified immunity even if mistaken about the existence

Tuffy's, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City

212 P.3d 1158 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 2009

We held that an employing political subdivision is immune as a matter of law only if an officer's acts are so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority the officer does not rightfully possess. … for any claim arising from law enforcement would not conform to established precedent.

Jack v. State

183 Okla. 375 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1937

The sole contention in that case was that the resolution merely waived the immunity of the state from suit, “and that it does not either expressly or impliedly waive the right of the commonwealth to insist on its immunity … L. 1935, is broad enough to disclose a legislative intent not only to waive the immunity of the state from suit, but to assume liability for such negligence of its agents as might be established upon a trial of the cause.

Taylor v. State Ex Rel. Rutherford

291 P.2d 1033 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1955

the branches of the healing art as defined in 59 O.S. 1951 § 702, must append to his name so written or printed in the same size letters as his name appropriate and generally and easily understood words or letters, which clearly … Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution is in part as follows: “ * * * No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall

Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

768 P.2d 359 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 19, 1988

It was reconveyed to the United States in trust for the Tribe to allow the Tribe to qualify for funding under the Economic Development Act. S.Rep. No. 93-877, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. [1974]. . … The cotut concluded that the tribal enterprise was immune from state regulation and that this immunity extended to the non-Indian corporate manager.

Smith v. Jordan

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 8, 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. … Smith has not shown the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the TPD defendants’ alleged conduct. Therefore, the TPD defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr.

TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK

321 P.3d 185 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2014

A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the constitution. Id. … The party challenging a statute's constitutionality has a heavy burden to establish that the statute is in excess of legislative power.

Weber v. Armco, Inc.

663 P.2d 1221 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1983

See 85 O.S.Supp.1982 § 12 which defines the extent of liability and immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act. … Some credence should also be given to the argument that any change in compensation law which would permit a covered employee to institute litigation against his employer, to recover for an injury clearly covered by the Workers

Lameda v. Independent School District No 29 of Cleveland County Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2021

Clearly Established Law The individual defendants alternatively assert that, if an equal protection claim is stated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot … that the clearly established prong of qualified immunity cannot be defined at a level of generality that fails to demonstrate every reasonable official would have understood their alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Paris v. Carrocia

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 13, 2023

Bynum further argues that any constitutional right at issue related to Bynum’s supervisory duties was not clearly established and he is thus entitled to qualified immunity. … A right is “clearly established” under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis when the “contours of a right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing

Phelps v. Holliman

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 27, 2025

The court therefore turns to whether Phelps has satisfied his burden under the second prong of the qualified immunity test–the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. … In sum, the court concludes that Phelps has satisfied his burden on the second prong of the qualified immunity test–the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.