Case law

Ford v. Tulsa Public Schools

405 P.3d 142 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 27, 2017

of imparting notice of the claim and hold that although the notice given did not conform to the authorized procedures under the [Political Subdivision Torts Claims Act, 51 O.S. 1981 § 151 et seg.], it was sufficient to establish … As explained by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a case cited by Shanbour : The [GTCA] adopted the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and then partially waived the immunity....

Wright v. Kay County Justice Facilities Authority

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 24, 2020

Defendant Ware also asserts the claim against him should be dismissed as he is entitled to qualified immunity. Defendant’s request for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. … As for Defendant Ware’s claim of qualified immunity, he does not assert that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Child Doe 1, a minor, by and through parent and next friend, Parent Doe 1, et al. v. Tulsa County, ex. rel. Juvenile Bureau of the Tulsa County District Court, et al.

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 11, 2026

Comm’rs, 965 F.3d 1114, 1115 n.1 (10th Cir. 2020) (per curium) (“[A]lthough qualified immunity only shields individuals—municipal liability for claims of deliberate indifference must follow only from clearly established … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) facts that demonstrate the officials violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’

Betchan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 30, 2020

Defendants, in turn, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the claim, as conduct commensurate with a HIPAA violation does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … 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

Hall v. Welch

151 Okla. 206 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1931

petition for writ of prohibition is the proper remedy, and relies on section 27, art. 2, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, which provides as follows: “Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish … It is apparent that it is the rule of this jurisdiction that the writ of prohibition should not issue out of this court involving criminal offenses unless it clearly appears from the record that the trial court has no jurisdiction

Hofferber v. First National Bank

451 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 5, 1977

In her Response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff states: “This Plaintiff would like to point out to the Court that the judicial immunity, as a creature and establishment of the judicial system, was recognized by the Plaintiff … Judicial Immunity, . . .’

Hayes v. Owen

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2024

Similarly, as to qualified immunity, Plaintiffs do not show a connection between the information sought and the validity of the immunity defense. See Gutierrez, 841 F.3d at 908. … Plaintiffs make no attempt to tie the proposed discovery to a clearly established federal constitutional or statutory right. See Heard v.

Howard v. Webb

570 P.2d 42 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 4, 1977

established the nature of the privilege as being freedom from arrest in civil proceedings only. 10 Geo. … Justice Brandeis wrote for the Court: "Clause 1 [of Art I, § 6] defines the extent of the immunity.

Baptist Medical Center v. Pruett

70 O.B.A.J. 1477 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1998

A review of the pertinent statutory sections leads to an affirmative answer to both questions. 4 ¶ 13 The CWMP was established as a pilot program that permitted employers to establish a “workplace medical plan for the management … The evidence here clearly substantiates the Workers’ Compensation Court’s conclusion that a dispute existed and began “no later than” the filing date of Claimant’s Form 9.

Parker v. Lawton City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 28, 2025

at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.”

Womble v. Harvanek

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2019

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant alleges he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

CDR SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION

2014 OK 31 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2014

CDR timely appealed, and COCA found that CDR's Privileges and Immunities argument was without merit because the U.S. … Supreme Court has held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, citing Monell v.

Sharp v. Whitney

170 Okla. 105 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

She left as her sole and only heirs three children, Melson, Mary, and Alex Sharp, the latter two being minors and plaintiffs herein; that Josie Marpiyecher was duly appointed and qualified as guardian of said minor heirs; … That case is clearly distinguishable from this case.

State Ex Rel. Whitson v. Board of Com'rs, Ellis Co.

65 Okla. 273 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1917

After the establishing of stock districts, one-fourth of the legal voters, residents of any stock district so established, may petition in writing the board of county commissioners for an election in such district, at which … In that, they do not clearly show that said stock district existed at the time the petition for an election was filed.” “2.

Lafalier v. LEAD-IMPACTED COMMUNITIES

237 P.3d 181 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 22, 2010

regarding violations of the Open Meeting Act, were "immune from suit." … We do not agree that section 2205 is an invocation of the State's sovereign immunity.

Christian v. Thompson

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 3, 2019

“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.”

Coon v. L.W. Miller Diversified, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 9, 2020

“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 … Once a defendant has asserted qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must [] establish “(1) that the defendant violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that this right was clearly established at the time of the

Rudman v. Oklahoma State of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 26, 2023

discerning clearly established law. … The court dismissed the claims under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

VASQUEZ v. DILLARD'S, INC.

381 P.3d 768 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2016

' may continue "to provide coverage for workplace injuries under the traditional *778 no-fault workers’ compensation system, now governed by the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act (AWCA). 18 Employers are provided immunity … [t]he rights and obligations of a qualified employer and its employees shall.be subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of Section 6 of [the AWCA]....” 58 The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent to not allow workers

Carter v. Littlefield

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2023

Qualified Immunity All Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity will preclude a party from maintaining an action against a state officer unless the officer has violated the opposing party’s clearly established rights. See Perez v.