Case law

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

Ex Parte Houston

93 Okla. Crim. 26 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1950

Clearly the Airport Limousine Service is incidentally favored, but legally so by reason of what we have said heretofore. … Judge POWELL clearly demonstrates in his opinion that the mere fact of definition does not make them such.

Davis v. Muskogee, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2025

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is demonstrated that their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their positions would have known. … Plaintiff has not met her burden to demonstrate that Sergeant Jenkins violated clearly established law, and therefore, he is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Alexander v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 5, 2000

Farrar clearly lacks the qualifications necessary to render opinions regarding the mechanical behavior of the Rogozinski device while implanted. Dr. … There are two exceptions to the learned intermediary doctrine in Oklahoma — mass immunizations and situations where the FDA has mandated that warning be given directly to the consumer — neither of which is applicable here

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.

Nation v. State Farm Insurance Co.

65 O.B.A.J. 1837 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 17, 1994

PARENTAL IMMUNITY At common law the doctrine of family, or parental, immunity was a defense to lawsuits between spouses and between parents and children. … The readings of Morgan's policy and George's policies must be governed by established legal rules.

Franks v. City of Ponca City

170 Okla. 134 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 18, 1934

The board of commissioners shall have power to establish and maintain a city police department, including a chief of police, and to appoint such policemen as it shall’ deem necessary. “Section 75. … The plaintiff contends that he was a qualified elector within the meaning of those provisions, though he admits that he was not a qualified elector in the city of Ponca City.

State Ex Rel. Short v. Riedell

109 Okla. 35 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1924

create, a monopoly in the business of auditing and accounting; that it attempts to create an association of accountants and auditors to individuals, and to grant thereto individual and exclusive *36 rights, privileges, and immunities … The general principles upon which police power of the state rests, and the purposes of its exercise, are clearly stated ki two paragraphs of Corpus Juris, cited in the plaintiff’s brief.

Treadway v. State

338 P.2d 360 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1959

The officer said he could almost read the labels on the bottles and could clearly identify Jack Treadway, who looked about as far away as the back of the courtroom. … The competent evidence and its reasonable inferences tends to support the trial court’s finding, since the rule is definitely established that: “The constitutional provisions guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search

Opinion No. (2009)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 19, 2009

individual or organizations 4 [sic], thereby establishing fair *Page 5 market price, which establishment shall be subject to ratification by the Committee at the next regular Committee meeting. … The requirement that the fair market price be determined prior to the time of procurement or contract award, is clearly set forth in the statutes.

Delaney v. Morris

193 Okla. 589 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1944

The rule is well established, and has been recognized and applied in this state since Northrup v. Eakes, 72 Okla. 66 , 178 P. 266 , and Walters v. … in this particular instance Was so clearly and extremely erroneous and prejudicial as to require reversal.

Opinion No. 71-289 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 15, 1971

(Emphasis added) A plain reading of the above language, and a strict interpretation of the same, clearly indicates that the qualified voters residing in the area of the authority shall vote upon the approval, prohibition, … No authority shall operate in any area in which an authority already established is operating without the consent by resolution of the authority already operating therein."

In Re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669

66 O.B.A.J. 2313 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 11, 1995

Const., provides that the term “qualified elector” includes legislatively imposed exceptions to the right of qualified electors to vote. 5 Thus, the term “qualified elector,” standing alone might be misunderstood to mean … Shall contain language which clearly states that a “yes” vote is a vote in favor of the proposition and a "no” vote is a vote against the proposition; and 7.

Shaw v. Jones

147 Okla. 123 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 29, 1930

The first provision would seem to lay a tax upon any property or interest therein, but this is qualified in the latter provision and clearly defined to be the transfer of tangible property in this state or of intangible property … The inevitable tendency of that view is to disturb good relations among the states and produce the kind of discontent expected to subside after establishment of the Union. The Federalist, No. VII.

Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 28, 2025

immunity. … First, Defendant Johnson’s Motion for summary judgment plainly raises a qualified immunity defense. Dkt. No. 324.

First Nat. Bank of Seminole v. Henshaw

169 Okla. 49 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 1934

William Mur-dock was duly appointed receiver therein, and is now the duly qualified and acting receiver. … So, it appears to us, from a consideration of the cases above referred to and many others which we do not deem it necessary to cite herein, to be the well-established rule that the petitioners herein are entitled to be sued

ConocoPhillips Co. v. Henry

520 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 4, 2007

One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”); Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. … Defendants focused their jurisdictional arguments on the issue of sovereign immunity.

Duncan v. State

89 Okla. Crim. 325 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1949

Snell, Delbert Smith, Buck White and Coy Dennis, and other evidence clearly establishing the guilt of the defendants herein, this contention relative to Sam Agrista is without merit, particularly when viewed in light of the … Maxine Preston clearly establishes the voluntary nature of the confession of Perry Pugh as well as the confession of Sam Agrista.

Smith v. Allbaugh

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

Lakey v. Taylor

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

Qualified Immunity Defendant Bryant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s claims against him in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity “protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated ‘clearly establish … constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”