Case law

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.

Nelson v. Pollay

67 O.B.A.J. 707 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1996

OMH pressed for summary judgment on three grounds: (a) immunity from liability under the GTCA, (b) Nelson’s failure either to establish any independent negligence by OMH or its employees or (e) to comply with the' Act’s pre-suit … The final provision in § 152(5) 22 clearly takes the employee/teaching-physicians out of the scope of their employment when they are practising medicine — whether for educational or other purposes — yet leaves them within

Deal v. Brooks

389 P.3d 375 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2016

The constitutional right at issue—described in GJA as a child’s “clearly established constitutional right to be reasonably safe from harm when placed in the state’s custody,” GJA, ¶37 (footnote omitted)—is, as explained in … See Bosh, ¶32. 12 CONCLUSION ¶ 56 “[Established precedent” in Oklahoma has “refused to construe the [GTCA] as providing blanket immunity,” especially where that immunity would “render the Constitutional protections afforded

Poore v. Glanz

46 F. Supp. 3d 1191 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 29, 2014

Sheriff Glanz did not present a qualified immunity analysis in his summary judgment papers. … There is also not a single reference to qualified immunity in Glanz’s reply brief. (See Doc. 104).

First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Oklahoma Industrial Finance Authority

951 P.2d 625 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 3, 1998

] ... to be loaned, and reloaned, by said Authority only to Oklahoma incorporated industrial development agencies (whether profit or non-profit) in Oklahoma communities, which agencies shall first have been approved and qualified … established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known); Butt v.

McKee v. City of Skiatook, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 12, 2025

qualified immunity. … Once qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] that a reasonable factfinder could find facts sup- porting the violation of a constitutional right that had been clearly established

Paxton v. Independent School District No. 7 Leflore County, Oklahoma

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 28, 2024

The Court further finds Tompkins is entitled to qualified immunity on Count 1, as Plaintiff has failed to allege that she violated a clearly established constitutional right. b. … The Court further finds Brittain and Beesley are entitled to qualified immunity on Count 1, as Plaintiff has failed to allege that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. A.

Colwell v. Walters

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 12, 2025

immunity protects 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 known.” … The Court denied dismissal, concluding that Plaintiff’s allegations made out the violation of a clearly established First Amendment right. See Order of Aug. 12, 2024, at 13.

Wilson v. Gipson Ex Rel. Gipson

753 P.2d 1349 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1988

The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well established principle of common law at the time the Oklahoma Constitution was created. In Neal v. … Donahue, supra at 1129, we stated that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was a well established principle of common law when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

ASHTON v. STATE

400 P.3d 887 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2017

This Court’s interpretation of this provision is well established. … . ¶ 24 In the present case, neither of the two avenues for securing immunity under Section 27 occurred. The prosecution did not enter into an immunity agreement with Goff.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Seamprufe Inc.

121 F. Supp. 165 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1954

secured by the Constitution” clearly place the cause of action within the jurisdictional purview of the “Civil rights” statute. 3 Naturally, to be entitled to relief, the plaintiffs upon a hearing of this matter must .establish … No person is immune from prosecution in good faith for his alleged criminal acts.

Steelman v. Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System

128 P.3d 1090 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 2005

Likewise, Trustees are immune from individual liability under § 1988. McFall v. … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir.2005): "The doctrine of qualified immunity, therefore, shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages arising from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims

Graham v. Lone Grove, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2020

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.” … Because Plaintiff has not shown clearly established law, both Chief Oldham and Sheriff Bryant are entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re the Purchase of the Suntide Inn Motel

563 P.2d 125 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1977

Such an intention is not plainly expressed or clearly implied in reading § 1420, supra. See Davidson County v. … I believe that the legislative intent of § 1420 is clearly to subject the state and its subdivisions to municipal zoning regulations and procedures.

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects 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 known.” … clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Smith v. Hines

261 P.3d 1129 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 7, 2011

expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the expert's determination that, based upon a review of the available medical records, facts … expert, b. the 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

Goff

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 20, 2026

Qualified immunity shields public officials from facing the burdens of litigation and is an immunity from suit, not simply a defense to a plaintiff’s claims. Serna v. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ibarra v. Lee

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 14, 2024

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and directed the Court to reevaluate the second prong of qualified immunity to determine whether Jorge Mar- tinez’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff must show that (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at

Evans v. Bryant

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 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

Laca v. United States

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 18, 2024

Discovery & Qualified Immunity “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 person would have known.’”