Case law

Delaney v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 11, 2025

"[A] defendant's assertion of qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 results in a presumption of immunity." Est. of Taylor v. … Here, Plaintiff has provided such clearly established precedent.

Lewis v. Edmond City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 6, 2021

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the constitutional … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”); Estate of Ceballos v.

Sholer v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. PUB. SAF.

945 P.2d 469 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Aug 14, 1997

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE GOVERNMENTAL TORT CLAIMS ACT DPS has invoked the protection of sovereign immunity from suit. … deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 17, 2023

On July 7, 2023, Defendant Manning filed an Amended Motion to Quash Deposition Notice arguing that since Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Qualified Immunity remains pending, the Court should stay discovery until the immunity … However, even if the Court dismissed her from this action under qualified immunity, this alone would not eliminate the necessity for her deposition in this case.

Truttman v. City of McAlester

206 Okla. 297 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1952

Plaintiffs alleged that they were resident taxpayers and were qualified and licensed master; plumbers and journeymen plumbers. … Undisputed evidence established .that these applicants, as well as several others, failed to make a passing grade.

Parret v. UNICCO Service Co.

127 P.3d 572 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 2005

The phrase " 'defensive use' of the doctrine ... means that a stranger to the judgment, ordinarily the defendant in the second action, relies upon a former judgment as conclusively establishing in his favor an issue which … The text of 85 O.S.2001 § 11 clearly provides that an injury is compensable "without regard to fault” on the worker's part. . Graham v. Keuchel, 1993 OK 6 , 847 P.2d 342, 357 .

St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, Creek County

276 P.2d 773 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 1954

Petitioner’s showing reasonably tended to establish the following situation: Plaintiff Murphey, a resident of Springfield, Missouri, was allegedly injured at that place; all of the witnesses except two reside at Springfield … This case clearly disposes of respondent’s argument that a state court cannot decline jurisdiction of an F.E.L.A. action.

Wall v. Marouk

302 P.3d 775 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 2013

expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the determination of the expert that, based upon a review of the available material including … expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion from a qualified expert that clearly identifies the plaintiff and includes the expert's determination that, based upon a review of the available medical records, facts

Faulk v. Board of Com'rs of Marshall County

40 Okla. 705 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1914

However, be that as it may, whether the facts suggested by such an admission are established or not, and we are willing to concede that the submission was in excess of the income and revenue for that year, yet this is not … To adopt this view would be in opposition to every well known rule of construction and have us reach a conclusion in the face of the meaning clearly stated in both the organic and statutory law of this state.

Polk v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

420 P.2d 520 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1966

It was stipulated further that plaintiff otherwise was a qualified person except for the statutory requirement of population. … Every legislative act is presumed constitutional, and cannot be declared unconstitutional unless clearly so. Tate v. Logan, Okl., 362 P.2d 670 .

BOOTH v. HOME DEPOT

2022 OK 16 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 15, 2022

¶12 Appellant argues that, because the Acts protect all Oklahomans from criminal actions of fraud by a retailer, public policy is clearly established. Not so. The OCPA and the HRFA are not primarily criminal statutes. … Without a clear mandate from the Legislature, the Acts do not qualify as an established public policy.

CONNER v. STATE

2025 OK 12 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 2025

The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Thus, because these "constitutional" torts are now clearly "torts" governed by the GTCA, the GTCA's specific prohibition against tort suits arising out of the "operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional

Avant v. Doke

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2021

When a defendant asserts a qualified-immunity defense, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a federal statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant … Because the right is not clearly established, defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity as to this claim. The “political association” claim is dismissed.

Trice v. Burress

137 P.3d 1253 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2006

the Chureh's reasons and motives for terminating [parishioners'] membership" "require an impermissible inquiry into Church disciplinary matters," and that the First Amendment precludes a member's defamation "claim [which] clearly … In addition to the absolute immunity afforded by the First Amendment, a church or other religious organization ordinarily bears no tort liability for statements by or between church officers or members concerning the conduct

Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School District No. 30

74 O.B.A.J. 969 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 2003

suspect classification nor with an infringement upon a fundamental right, the rational-basis standard of review governs this dispute. 29 Rational-basis scrutiny is a highly deferential standard that proscribes only that which clearly … 118 The common-law doctrine of governmental tort immunity protects public *449 funds from claims by private persons.

Atchison v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 25, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officers “‘from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gutierrez vy. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plain- tiff must show that (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time

Brown v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 21, 2023

Plaintiff, conversely, argues that Defendant Jordan violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights and therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Doc. 18. … prong of the qualified immunity analysis is not satisfied, and Defendant Jordan is entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Frary's Estate

186 Okla. 126 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 28, 1939

“A proviso can have no existence separate and apart from the provision it is designed to limit or qualify. … It is likewise clearly not intended to limit, qualify, or affect that which is found thereafter in subdivision 3 of section 1617, supra, which is clearly applicable in the instant case.

Cruse v. Board of County Commissioners

66 O.B.A.J. 4005 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1995

The latter result clearly is repugnant to the now-prevailing national choice-of-law rules. … The course it takes is clearly contrary to the extant national jurisprudence.

Garcia v. Ted Parks, L.L.C.

195 P.3d 1269 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 2008

Service was clearly ineffective and contrary to 12 0.S8.2001 § 2004. 16 *1276 122 The landowner does admit discovering the notice on her kitchen table by the end of July 2006. … Not only was notice defective, the landowner qualified for a redemption. The version of 68 0.8.