Case law

Multimedia Games, Inc. v. WLGC Acquisition Corp.

214 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 18, 2001

Federal jurisdiction was established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1381 , 1338, and 1367. … The merger contract is devoid of any language that clearly expresses the Tribe’s intent to authorize causes of action in federal court.

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.

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.

Crist

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 7, 2026

In seeking dismissal, Defendant West also invokes the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that his alleged actions violated a clearly established right. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.

Lindamood v. Jordan

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2025

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 … 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

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.

Jones v. Moore City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2025

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

Speight v. Presley

203 P.3d 173 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 2008

Defendants argue that court clerks are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for performing tasks intimately related to the judicial process, citing Sindram v. … We affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Board of County Commissioners because the summary judgment materials of record in that case clearly and conclusively established that at the time of the vouecher's issuance, the

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.

Moreland

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2026

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove (1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time … “For purposes of qualified immunity, law is clearly established if Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit or the weight of authority from other circuits, would put reasonable officers in the defendants’ position on notice they

Strock v. City of Lawton

67 O.B.A.J. 1279 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 1996

established in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, Section 151 et seq. of Title 51 of the Oklahoma Statutes. … However, the emphasized language waives that immunity “to the extent of liability expressly and directly established” by the Act.

Hoffman v. State

611 P.2d 267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 13, 1980

State, supra, this Court observed: [T]he framers of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions, when imposing the prohibition of placing a person twice in jeopardy, clearly intended the person to be protected from being … II, § 27, (amended Dec. 7, 1971) provides for immunity from prosecution as follows: “Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation under the laws of

Mahaffey v. Territory of Oklahoma

11 Okla. 213 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 4, 1901

We do not think that this is a reasonable interpretation of our statute, and it is clearly not the intent of the law-making power. … We think that this instruction was clearly erroneous as highly prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and therefore requires the reversal of the cause.

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

Opinion No. (1990)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 10, 1990

The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … An interpretation of the definitions section which precludes the State's liability for medical negligence conflicts with this provision which so clearly provides for that contingency.

Kaul v. State

43 Okla. Crim. 56 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 11, 1929

He had the right to refuse to testify, and the state must give him immunity. … In the case at bar the wife was not a necessary witness, her evidence was clearly incompetent, and the admission of the same deprived the defendant of a substantial statutory right.

Bowens v. Board of County Commissioners of Custer County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 1, 2020

The Court will consider Defendant Morgan’s arguments in the context of his claim of qualified immunity.2 When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, the responsibility shifts to the Plaintiff … In evaluating whether the law was clearly established, the Court considers whether it is clearly established that the officer’s conduct would violate constitutional rights. Mullenix v.

Fleak v. Allman

420 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1976

. §§ 2201 and 2202 to declare and to define the rights and legal relations of the parties and to secure plaintiff’s and intervenor’s 1 rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States. … and the qualified candidate. “ . . .

Baker v. Oklahoma City City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 3, 2025

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … When a defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) by reason of qualified immunity, “there is ‘a presumption that the defendant is immune from suit.’” Bledsoe v.