Case law

Morris v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 31, 2019

constitutional violations was clearly established. … supporting any constitutional violation was clearly established.

Rhoades v. Stitt

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2023

Winder, 16 F.4th 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 2021)(“Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Roberts’ substantive due process right was not clearly established. Potts v. … For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Defendant Stitt is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of Plaintiff Harrell’s separation that he had a statutory right

Gourley v. Countryman

18 Okla. 220 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1907

issue it relates back to the inception of the patentee so as to cut out all intervening claims, but until patent does issue the certificate carries 'with it. to the purchaser the full equitable title, with all the benefits, immunities … The foregoing authorities clearly establish the doctrine that a receiver’s certificate conveys only an equitable estate; that until patent issues the fee remains in the United *233 States, from which it must necessarily follow

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.

Jones v. Burkett

346 P.2d 338 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 10, 1959

An individual must have a residence somewhere, and when once established, it is presumed to continue until a new one is established; and an individual can have but one domicile or residence at a time. Richardson v. … The question of fact of residence is for the determination of a jury or trial court, and such determination is conclusive upon appeal unless clearly against the weight of the evidence. Burke v.

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

Hammons v. Muskogee Medical Center Authority

697 P.2d 539 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1985

The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act was adopted by our legislature as a conditional encroachment into the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … The initial question the trial court will confront is whether the hospital qualifies as an agency of Muskogee, Oklahoma.

Thompson v. Mericle

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 20, 2024

clearly established law. … clearly established law.

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

Krueger v. Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Turner v. Oklahoma Oklahoma Cnty. Bd. Of Cnty. … “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.

John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

405 P.3d 681 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 24, 2017

And, here, the class defining language is “actions requiring ... a qualified expert ... to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach of duty resulted in harm.” 19.1(A). … expert, b. tiie plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies ‘the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Jon Echols , Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 90

2024 OK AG 19 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 30, 2024

Considering these clearly defined legal duties vested with the county, the office provides a summary of the most salient facts giving rise to the current dispute between Oklahoma County and Oklahoma City about the construction … Also, Oklahoma County chose a location away from security-sensitive establishments like schools, daycares, and houses of worship.

Jackson v. Oklahoma Memorial Hospital

909 P.2d 765 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1995

Jackson brought herself clearly within the common-law parameters of the doctrine. … The trial court clearly erred in giving summary judgment based on the physician’s perceived GTCA-conferred immunity.

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.

Massey v. City of Oklahoma City

643 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1986

In order for a plaintiff to qualify for the civil remedies of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (1982), he must first prove that the defendant has previously committed one of the “predicate offenses” set out in 18 *85 U.S.C. § 1962 (1982) … For these reasons, the Supreme Court decided that municipal corporations are immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Wikel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

197 F.R.D. 493 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 13, 2000

Yet, “[t]he mere fact that litigation does eventually ensue does not, by itself, cloak materials” with work product immunity. Binks Mfg. Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 1109 , 1118 (7th Cir.1983). … The fact that a defendant anticipates the contingency of litigation resulting from an accident or event does not automatically qualify an accident report as work product.

Kiddy v. City of Oklahoma City

576 P.2d 298 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1978

Sections 277 and 278, quoted above, clearly established that every deaf-mute, who is charged with the commission of a criminal offense, shall be entitled to the assistance of a qualified interpreter upon arrest. … Rather, they merely establish a means by which State Courts may obtain the assistance of interpreters and compensate them for their services.

Knighten v. Ramsey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 16, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Ramsey contends he is entitled to qualified immunity because Knighten has not met his burden to show a constitutional violation or that the law was clearly established. ECF No. 101 at 19-37.

Patterson v. Rural Water District 2 Cotton County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 7, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The Court’s analysis focuses on the clearly-established-law prong.

Graham v. Lone Grove, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 8, 2022

He contends he is entitled to qualified immunity as to both federal claims, arguing that he did not violate Graham’s rights, and alternatively that these rights were not clearly established. … was clearly established.