Case law

ASHTON v. STATE

2017 OK CR 15 · 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.

Tice v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 2, 2020

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly 9 Donaldson was disciplined in part for placing a flyer allegedly created by the Committee and … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that both (1) the official violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right violated was clearly established

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity Claims against police officers in their “individual capacity” are subject to the defense of qualified immunity. … “After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right. . . .

LARGEN v. WENCO ENERGY CORP.

2014 OK CIV APP 47 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 2014

That the means chosen by Defendant may not have been the safest, or that the Defendant would have been better advised to hire a professional mover is clearly open to debate. … Howard , 2010 OK 26, ¶10, 236 P.3d 82, 88. ¶15 That said, there is absolutely no proof or even inference that Defendant acted with a specific and deliberate intent to cause Decedent's death as to divest Defendant of the immunity

Knighten v. Ramsey

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 18, 2022

Finally, they argue that even if Ramsey’s alleged use of force violated the Constitution, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established right. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Mayfield v.

AMENDMENT OF RULES 2, 4, 7 AND 8 OF RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO PRACTICE OF LAW

2021 OK 50 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 18, 2021

RULE FIFTEEN a) The Board of Bar Examiners and its members, employees and agents are immune from all civil liability for damages for conduct and communications occurring in the performance of and within the scope of their … RULE FIFTEEN a) The Board of Bar Examiners and its members, employees and agents are immune from all civil liability for damages for conduct and communications occurring in the performance of and within the scope of their

Espinosa-Hernandez v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 12, 2019

“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 … Regarding the requisite proof of clearly established law, “[a] plaintiff may satisfy this standard by identifying an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision; alternatively ‘the clearly established

Chesney v. Jones

31 Okla. 363 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1912

His jurisdiction and authority is special and limited, and herein is clearly, defi *366 nitely fixed just the measure of his duty. … The evidence given by the registration books established a certain and ready foundation as a basis, and was doubtless deemed to be the best and the simplest which could be secured.

Huff v. Reeves

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 4, 2020

Still, the “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” Knopf, 884 F.3d at 944 (citation omitted). A plaintiff must establish both prongs to defeat a qualified immunity defense. … He is also entitled to qualified immunity based on the second prong of the test – Plaintiff has not shown that Trooper Reeves violated a clearly established right under these circumstances.

IN RE: STATE QUESTION No. 807, INITIATIVE PETITION No. 423

468 P.3d 383 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 23, 2020

The burden is on a protestant to demonstrate that a proposed initiative is clearly and manifestly unconstitutional on its face. … This clearly presents an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress and is preempted. ¶4 The majority leans on this notion that state law immunity would not frustrate the

Bailey v. Franklin

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 8, 2021

Qualified Immunity Claims brought against municipal police officers in their “individual capacity” are subject to the defense of qualified immunity. … “After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right. . . .

TULSA STOCKYARDS, INC. v. CLARK

2014 OK 14 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 2014

A statute will be upheld unless it is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the constitution. Id. … The party challenging a statute's constitutionality has a heavy burden to establish that the statute is in excess of legislative power.

Ex Parte Strauch

80 Okla. Crim. 89 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1945

establishments and hotels. … Ed. 599 : “The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the national government, and granted or secured by the Constitution

Sanford v. Howard

185 Okla. 660 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 26, 1939

The Subject Classified. — The occasion upon which privileged communications are made may be classified as those absolutely privileged and those in which the privilege is qualified.” “Sec. 506. First. … This rule is, however, confined to cases in which the public service or the administration of justice requires complete immunity — for example, words spoken in legislative bodies, in debates, etc.; in reports of military

VASQUEZ v. DILLARD'S, INC.

2016 OK 89 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 13, 2016

employers may continue to provide coverage for workplace injuries under the traditional 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 5 of [the AWCA] . . . ." 58 The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent to not allow

Drummond

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2026

Because Defendants raise the qualified-immunity defense, Plaintiff must “establish (1) the defendant[s] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Plaintiff has failed to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

City of Guthrie v. Wylie

6 Okla. 61 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 4, 1896

That they went through the forms of electing and qualifying a mayor, council, clerk, treasurer and other officers common to a city government. … It is unnecessary for us to elaborate this proposition, as it has already been clearly and definitely determined by this court (Losey v. City of Guthrie, 1 Okla. 188 ; Blackburn v.

United States v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

435 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1977

First of all he testified before Your Honor had conferred immunity on him, and he refused and then he was given immunity and he testified all one afternoon, specifically on the afternoon of February 12, just almost a year … After being forced to testify through a grant of immunity, he established himself as an expert on federal income tax and the officer primarily responsible for the Company’s tax returns.

State ex rel. Macy v. Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty One Dollars & No/100 ($30,781.00)

65 O.B.A.J. 160 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1993

This statement clearly contradicts State’s position that the money was intended to be used to purchase drugs. … The State’s eviden-tiary materials did not establish the absence of any controversy as to a material fact, and summary adjudication was inappropriate.

Matter of NL

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

The Indian child's tribe may establish a different order of preference by resolution. 25 U.S.C. § 1915 (c). … She contends that the State failed to establish good cause for refusing to transfer this proceeding to her tribal court.