Case law

ANAGNOST v. TOMECEK

2017 OK 7 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 24, 2017

Generally, a statute or its amendments will have only prospective effect unless it clearly provides otherwise. Id. … immunity). 23 See, e.g., Cole v.

LOPEZ v. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY

383 P.3d 790 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 2016

Based on this record, the Board has not established that it mowed the entire width of its "statutory-right-of-way" at this intersection. … Supp. 2013 § 155(10). ¶28 The Board argues that "[i]t is clearly undisputed that the growth of vegetation is a natural condition of the property of Defendant Board."

Curry v. Streater

213 P.3d 550 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 2009

DEFENDANTS THREATENING DEMEANOR IS ESTABLISHED BY CRYSTAL-CLEAR PROOF. T8 The defendant was doubtless angered by his cousin's decision not to be in attendance at graveside service. … NO IMMUNITY APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANTS DEMEANOR. 19 The defendant is a police officer with seven years of experience.

Levine v. Teal

193 Okla. 495 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1944

On appeal defendants contend that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and clearly against the weight of the evidence. … It is a well-established rule that in such cases we will not reverse on conflicting evidence.

Rural Water Sewer & Solid Waste Management, District No. 1, Logan County v. City of Guthrie

253 P.3d 38 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 2010

No analysis was given as to which entity, be it the Oklahoma Legislature or Congress, authorized the qualified right. … Congress clearly acted within its powers." Id. at 1215. 12 .

Hunt v. Canadian Valley Technology Center District No.6

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 14, 2024

Qualified immunity applies to state actors who commit wrongful or illegal acts unless the defendant “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Without a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit case clearly establishing a constitutional right to nonnegligent care for an infant enrolled in a childcare program, individual Defendants enjoy qualified immunity.

Ellsworth Bottling Co. v. United States

408 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 24, 1975

The term “independent establishment” is not defined in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, however, the term is defined by 5 U.S.C. § 104 as: “ . . .an establishment in the executive branch (other … Plaintiff’s reliance on this section as a jurisdictional basis is clearly misplaced.

State Ex Rel. Dabney v. Ledbetter

156 Okla. 23 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 22, 1932

filed a petition praying for an order of this court directing the clerk of this court to enroll his name among the regular practicing lawyers of the state courts and that he may be accorded all the rights, privileges, and immunities … , and we shall likewise refuse to reinstate any one who is not so qualified.

Opinion No. (2009)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2009

Oklahoma School of Dentistry is hereby created for instruction in Dentistry. 3 The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education are hereby authorized and directed to establish … OAC 195:15-1-3 ; 15-1-4; 15-1-5. 3 While dentistry is specifically authorized to be operated and governed in the School by legislative enactment, dental hygiene is not so clearly authorized.

RC v. Independent School District No. 2 of Osage County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 29, 2024

any constitutional rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the violations. … Clearly Established Right A right is clearly established if a reasonable public official would have known that his or her challenged conduct was illegal. Martinez v.

Mirll v. University of Central Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 4, 2020

“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.”

Leatherwood

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 27, 2026

“A motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity imposes the burden on the plaintiff to show (1) a constitutional violation occurred and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … based on qualified immunity.

Carney v. Moore

754 P.2d 863 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1988

“[W]hen cultural bias is clearly not implicated, the necessary proof may be provided by expert witnesses who do not possess special knowledge of Indian life. … The Indian child’s tribe may establish a different order of preference by resolution. 25 U.S.C. § 1915 (c).

Aldens, Inc. v. Ryan

454 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1976

Aldens is not required to qualify or register to do business in Oklahoma. Applications for credit accounts and credit agreement forms are included with the advertisements Aldens mail to Oklahoma residents. … The determination of whether the putative local benefit clearly outweighs the burden on interstate commerce is clearly a balancing test.

Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola

230 P.3d 488 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2009

or the Indian tribe has clearly consented to suit in state court or otherwise clearly waived tribal immunity. … [and that] the Tribe explicitly waives its immunity from suit.”

Jackson v. Scott

72 O.B.A.J. 17 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2000

The GTCA applies to the tort claims aspects of Jackson's statutory replevin remedy and provides immunity. … The record does not clearly establish when he went to Texas and when he returned to the private facility in Oklahoma. .

Williams v. Hasenmyer

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 20, 2023

Qualified Immunity. … Meyer are entitled to qualified immunity based on the “clearly established” prong.

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Pullman Inc.

74 F.R.D. 80 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 11, 1977

Defendant Pullman in its Response urges that Rule 30(c), supra, is not applicable if the discovery sought is outside the scope of permissible discovery as established by Rule 26(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. … It constitutes a qualified immunity from discovery of the lawyer’s work-product. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).

Monkey Island Development Authority v. Staten

74 O.B.A.J. 2118 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2003

FACTS T4 MIDA was established with a Trust Indenture (Trust) filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on March 17, 1992. … Oklahoma law clearly required that the trustees of this public trust subscribe to their oath of office in order to be qualified to act.

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 1, 2022

Coley argues that he is thus entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Turner v. … As to the second qualified immunity prong – whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the parties disagree about what Plaintiffs must demonstrate.