Case law

Armstrong v. Carr

74 O.B.A.J. 2901 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 20, 2003

The eviden-tiary materials clearly establish that Glover's trade/business was not so limited. … CONCLUSION € 27 Upon application of the Bradley analysis to the undisputed material facts of this case, we find that Glover established its entitlement to an immunity defense under see-tions 11 and 12 of the Workers' Compensation

Dubuc v. Sirmons

72 O.B.A.J. 1956 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 3, 2001

He must show that the defendants violated clearly established law. . … . § 1983 and hence is immune from suit by operation of the Eleventh Amendment. .

Castanon v. Cathey

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2019

Faced with the individual Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must point to a clearly established right that Defendants violated. See Milcor I, 764 F. App’x at 752. … Thus, to the dispositive question in qualified immunity cases—was the violative nature of particular conduct clearly established?—the answer, here, is no. See Mullinex, 136 S. Ct. at 308.

Dill v. Rader

583 P.2d 496 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 23, 1978

It is for the trial judge to determine whether such a prima facie case has been established. … ‘Where subsequent acts are relied on to establish a conspiracy, they must clearly indicate the prior collusive combination and fraudulent purpose and must warrant the conclusion that the subsequent acts were done in furtherance

German v. Rhoades

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 9, 2019

Some of defendants’ arguments assert qualified immunity as a basis for dismissal. … D. (2), defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on the abuse of process claim alleged under the Fourth Amendment (the second cause of action) because no clearly established law holds that their

Silsby v. Roberts

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jan 2, 2025

“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 … “‘When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

Quezada v. Walton

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 24, 2022

to qualified immunity. … To survive a motion to dismiss raising qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that “the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right,” and (2) “that the right was ‘clearly established at the

R & R ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. BOARD OF REVIEW OESC

2014 OK CIV APP 26 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 2014

Employer specifically submits its evidence clearly established Claimant resigned without good cause and his voluntary resignation disqualified him from receiving benefits pursuant to §2-404. ¶10 Commission counters if an … Labor Cite Name Level 40 O.S. 1 -108, Indian Tribes or Tribal Units - Benefits - Contributions or Payments - Extended Benefits - Delinquencies - No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Cited 40 O.S. 2 -404, Leaving Work Voluntarily

Ornder v. Elkins

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

But they are entitled to qualified immunity only “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mayfield v. Bethards, 826 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 2016). … Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts establish that they did not use excessive force and, even if they did, no clearly established law

Lewis v. City of Tulsa

179 Okla. 176 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1936

Immunity from liability which surrounds a judicial or legislative act is generally absolute, as ■ distinguished from qualified. … The rule of judicial or leg-is'ative immunity does not apply to that class of cases. .

Washington v. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 12, 2019

Furthermore, “individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established … When an individual defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Bond v. Tahlequah, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 25, 2019

They are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Id. … Even if the report were to be considered, it is only pertinent to the first prong of the qualified immunity test, not the “clearly established” prong. 12

Murphy v. Chickasha Mobile Homes, Inc.

611 P.2d 243 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 6, 1980

Vaughan, 200 Okl. 226 , 192 P.2d 639 [1948], There the “hirer” failed to qualify as a principal employer under either application. … Wilkerson settled as a ground for tort immunity the principal employer’s secondary liability.

Shotwell v. Department of Tourism and Recreation

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2025

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 person would have … Thus, to make out a viable claim and to overcome the assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show that “(1) defendant violated [her] constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at

Hammers v. State

337 P.2d 1097 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1959

State, supra, and the names first drawn, if qualified, shall constitute the grand jury. But, of course this would not be true, as was said in McGinley v. … Twice, he related, he went before the grand jury to grant immunity to Mr. and Mrs. Green.

Peters

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2026

clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).

Lockhart v. Loosen

943 P.2d 1074 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 21, 1997

Although this spouse's claim clearly falls within the range of statutorily abrogated civil accountability, the § 8.1 core of tort immunity is rather narrow. … But let there be no mistake about the immunity's outer limit.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hessenflow

69 Okla. 185 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 1918

A plaintiff seeking to establish negligence in the' use of improper -equipment, will not often be able to establish siuch negligence by proof which is limited to a mere description of the equipment used, neither the court … The plaintiff in error further contends that by submitting the case to the jury the court denied to it privileges and immunities guaranteed to it by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, thereby claiming immunity

Parks v. Oklahoma County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 17, 2020

Regarding Judge Erwin’s finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Count II, Plaintiff asserts that the law was clearly established in November 2017 that pretrial detainees were entitled … ) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Mougell v. State

97 Okla. Crim. 180 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 5, 1953

The state offered its proof establishing the crime of grand larceny, and rested. … The action of the trial judge herein was clearly an invasion of the province of the jury.