Case law

State Ex Rel. Manhattan Const. Co. v. Barnes

22 Okla. 191 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1908

It is clearly apparent that by this section of the act the system of registration provided by said chapter 13, Sess. … Section 1 of article 8 of this act reads: “There is hereby created and established a registration system in the various cities of the first class in the state of Oklahoma for the registration of electors, and no elector shall

In Re the Complaint & Petition of Magnolia Marine Transport Co.

301 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 4, 2003

of Sovereign Immunity. … Clearly, states have retained their immunity from suits by private parties. 4 Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743 , 122 S.Ct. 1864, 1870 , 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002).

Lippe v. Howard

287 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 14, 2018

Cocklin is clearly qualified to testify about issues regarding alcoholic beverage regulations, it appears he lacks any specialized knowledge related to use of force or police practice and procedure. … Despite this focus, "an expert's conclusions are not immune from scrutiny." Dodge v. Cotter Corp. , 328 F.3d 1212 , 1222 (10th Cir. 2003).

Serpik Family v. Webb

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 20, 2025

Defendants raise a variety of defenses, including sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, res judicata, failure to state a plausible claim, and others. … To overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, “a plaintiff must show that: (1) the public official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) these rights were clearly established at the time

Marriage of McQuay v. McQuay

217 P.3d 162 · Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · May 21, 2009

T8 "'Goodwill has been defined as the custom or patronage of any established trade or business; the benefit or advantage of having established a business and secured its patronage by the public." Freeling v. … If market value cannot be established by an *164 actual arms-length sale, then proof from similar sales in the vicinity can be used to establish market value.

Town of Eufaula v. Gibson

22 Okla. 507 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 13, 1908

Hence in our judgment it was proper and necessary to open •the ballot boxes, as the ballots themselves are the best evidence of the ultimate fact to be established. … Our Constitution provides that the county seats established by it “shall be and remain the county seats of their respective counties until changed by vote of the qualified electors of such county.”

City of Okmulgee v. Okmulgee Gas Co.

140 Okla. 88 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 1929

this state, the framers incorporated in the Constitution section 51 of art. 5, which reads: "The Legislature shall pass no law, granting to any association, corporation, or individual, any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities … It is a safe rule to assume that the Legislature means what it clearly says.

Catholic Benefits Ass'n LCA v. Sebelius

24 F. Supp. 3d 1094 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 4, 2014

Francis, these Plaintiffs qualify for the accommodation. … And here, the parties clearly disagree as to the scope of the preliminary injunction, rendering Reaching Souls unconvincing on this point. .

In Re Initiative Petition No. 365, State Question No. 687

55 P.3d 1048 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 2, 2002

The evidence at the hearing established Mr. Calvin is a bona fide resident of the State of Oklahoma and is over the age of eighteen. Therefore, Mr. Calvin is a qualified elector and eligible to circulate the petition. … At the hearing, Petitioners elicited testimony that established these notaries were properly qualified. Therefore, we deny this challenge.

Young v. Glanz

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 14, 2020

immunity analysis, Glanz’s qualified immunity argument is premised upon his argument that the evidence is not sufficient to show that any subordinate violated Ms. … In any event, the Court has previously conducted the qualified immunity / clearly established law analysis on nearly identical evidence that a jury could find constituted deliberate indifference by Sheriff Glanz to Jail

Holland v. Glanz

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 30, 2019

In a § 1983 action, an official sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless he both violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly established. Cox v. … Glanz supports his argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity by arguing that there is no clearly established right to be screened for suicidal tendencies. (Doc. 15 at 5-7).

Claro v. Sulphur, City of

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Dec 16, 2019

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … The Court therefore finds that the law is not clearly established in this case and that Defendants McClure, Medina, Odom, and LaFountain are thus entitled to qualified immunity.

McCarroll v. Doctors General Hospital

664 P.2d 382 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 10, 1983

Upon examination of the medical records, Browne advised Smith of the possibility of a medical negligence claim and recommended that the records be submitted to qualified medical personnel to determine whether a medical negligence … V § 46; and (c) it confers special immunities upon members of the medical profession, in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. V § 51.

Coleman v. Court of Appeals, Division Number Two of Oklahoma

550 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1980

from civil action of this nature by virtue of the doctrine of judicial immunity. … Such sign and the lettering thereon shall be of sufficient size so as to be clearly visible and legible from the public street or streets toward which it faces.

Heavener v. Meyers

158 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 31, 2001

The Eleventh Amendment immunity generally afforded the state and its officers, sued in their official capacity, is well-established. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. … Counsel should take all necessary steps to assure that the lines of responsibility are clearly delineated and that duplication of effort is eliminated. Counsel in this case have failed to do so.

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Woodworth

89 Okla. 192 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1923

If the proviso to section 4 is held to restrain or qualify what precedes, it has no force and effect, and is useless, because there is nothing for it to restrain or qualify. … The natural and proper office of a proviso is to restrain or qualify some preceding matf|sr, and will ordinarily be confined to what precedes it, unless it clearly appears to have been intended to apply to some other matter

United States v. Johnston

138 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1956

Where there are material misrepresentations which go directly to the competency and general qualification of the applicant to perform the applied for work and where clearly the applicant would not have been hired, or his … In order for the Government to demonstrate it has been the object of false and fraudulent claims, the evidence must establish that the defendant was not qualified, by generally recognized professional standards, to do the

Ellis v. Grimes

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 4, 2022

Horn argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. Horn Br. at 14–17. Plaintiffs have shown a clearly established constitutional right to adequate medical care for a serious medical need. See Resp. … right was clearly established.

Campbell v. Independent School District No. 33 of Creek County, Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2024

Bilby moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that (1) Campbell has not established a constitutional violation, much less one committed by him; (2) he is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) the claims against … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors “from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Gutierrez v.

Industrial Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Williams

131 Okla. 167 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 5, 1928

The court in the Swoft'ord Case, quoting Cook on Corporations (4th Ed.) sec. 234, says: “During the past few years, however, the great weight of authority has clearly established the rule that, where a supposed corporation … that incorporators, after charter issued, are immune from personal liability.