Case law

Temple v. State

15 Okla. Crim. 146 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1918

Perhaps these facts could have been proven just as effectively without the production of the original deed', but it was incumbent upon the state and its officials to produce its evidence according to the well-established … same automatically operated to grant to this defendant an *149 immunity from prosecution under the provisions of section 27, art. 2, Constitution.

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. Baker

638 P.2d 464 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

Likewise, the constitution establishes the independence of the University and curtails legislative power over University affairs. … The determination of faculty salaries is clearly an integral part of the power to govern the University and a function essential in preserving the independence of the Board.

Zane v. Kramer

195 F. Supp. 3d 1243 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 19, 2016

Analysis With respect to plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, defendants rely on the defense of qualified immunity. … This decision finds support in the policies underlying the qualified immunity doctrine. Gomes v. Wood, 451 F.3d 1122, 1137-38 (10th Cir.2006).

Topkov

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 15, 2025

Topkov can satisfy the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity analysis. B. … Accordingly, the Court finds that Wheeler and Grubb are entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established law prong of the analysis as to Mr.

Swanson Ex Rel. Swanson v. Guthrie Independent School District No. I-1

942 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 1996

Immunity. … Immunity [Docket # 38].

Mullins v. Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System

122 P.3d 872 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2005

¶ 13 The Act does not, however, go so far as to require veterans be treated better than non-veterans. 27 Nor is the Act invoked when ail similarly situated employees are denied a benefit of employment that is granted to qualifying … USERRA does not mandate the relief sought by Mullins. 29 ¶ 15 Because Mullins did not establish a right to such retirement credits under state or federal laws, he did not establish a property right subject to due process

Estate of Bell-Levine v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

293 P.3d 964 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 2012

Title 68 0.8.2001 223(A) is clearly not such an enactment. … The Tax Commission has not alleged that it is immune from application of 68 0.$.2001 223(A).

Gilmore v. Board of Commissioners

147 P.3d 296 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 26, 2006

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record establishes no substantial controversy of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. … Section 155(15) clearly states that Commissioners are immune from lability for failing to initially place warnings of hazards normally associated with the use of roadways.

Newman v. State ex rel. Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

490 P.2d 1079 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1971

In the final analysis, it appears that the doctrine of sovereign immunity, at least for the more-or-less routine functions of the quasi-corporate subdivisions of the State, is so clearly against the modern trend and spirit … the Legislature has adopted an established judicial interpretation by repeated re-enactment of a statute. * * * Nor are we faced with a comprehensive legislative enactment designed to cover a field.

Oklahoma Corrections Professional Ass'n v. Jackson

280 P.3d 959 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2012

Prior to 2008, a non-profit organization was required to have one thousand (1,000) dues paying members for the organization to qualify for the automatic payroll withholding. … OF FREE SPEECH, THE OFFENDING STATUTORY PHRASE MAY BE SEVERED PURSUANT TO 75 0.8. 2011 § l1a. {10 The Corrections Association asserts that the potentially constitutionally infirm language of $ 34.70(B)(5) of title 62 is clearly

Houston v. Independent School District No. 89

949 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 30, 2013

Plaintiff claims these vacancies were filled by less qualified candidates who are not African American. Plaintiff presumably claims the District’s personnel decisions were motivated by racial discrimination. … It is well established that “the First Amendment protects a public employee’s right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern.” See Garcetti v.

Little v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation

938 P.2d 739 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1997

This concession establishes the first probative element required by the estoppel act. … Should that element be established on remand and the issue decided in claimant’s favor, the proof will be complete. 22 III.

West v. Cherokee County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields a government official “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established.

Walker v. Anderson

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 22, 2024

immunity because his takedown maneuver violated clearly established law. … clearly established.

Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

775 P.2d 766 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1989

The dispute between Parishioner and the Elders is clearly not immune from secular judicature and was properly before the trial court. … A church clearly is constitutionally free to exclude people without first obtaining their consent.

Nowlin v. Oklahoma City City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2020

Qualified immunity shields Officers Castlebury and Grimes from suit and liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 1 Nowlin … if so (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.”3 If the plaintiff fails to make either showing, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.4 But “[i]f the plaintiff

Edwards v. Harmon

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 16, 2019

Furthermore, he contends that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they engaged in unconstitutional and excessive force in violation of clearly established law. … on qualified immunity” because it “may allow us to find a clearly established right even when a precedent is neither on point nor obviously applicable.”

Black v. Simmons

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2020

Defendants did not violate any clearly established law. … The Court therefore finds Plaintiff has failed to establish either prong of the qualified immunity test.

KRIMBILL v. TALARICO

417 P.3d 1240 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 27, 2017

Nevertheless, the Act clearly contemplates that the pleadings may be considered . 7 IV. … If so, the email may qualify as a "fair and true report of a judicial proceeding."

Bryson v. Oklahoma County ex rel. Oklahoma County Detention Center

261 P.3d 627 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2011

City of Oklahoma City, 2009 OK 4, ¶ 20 , 212 P.3d 1158 , 1167: To construe § 155(4) as providing blanket immunity to political subdivisions for any claim arising from law enforcement would not conform to established precedent … Although the Fourth Amendment is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court clearly established in Graham that the Fourth Amendment is the substantive law providing a basis