Case law

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.

Powell v. State

60 Okla. Crim. 267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1936

The instructions of the court are not complained of, except the defendant offered some special instructions that were refused by the court, but an examination of the record clearly shows that the court covered all of the … in evidence were sufficient to sustain the motion to quash the panel of jurors, in that it appeared the jury commissioners had purposely excluded from the jury list, because of their color, citizens of the African race, qualified

Osage Nation v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

597 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 23, 2009

. § 1151 are automatically immunized from state taxation. … It does not establish civil immunities from state taxation. The Supreme Court’s references to 18 U.S.C. § 1151 in prior cases do not support a different result. Okla. Tax Comm’n v.

Glasco v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

188 P.3d 177 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 2008

Constitutional restriction on the Legislature will be strictly construed, and a statute will be upheld against a constitutional attack unless it is clearly and overtly inconsistent with the constitution. … For instance, § 152.1 waives governmental immunity only in the manner provided in the GTCA and § 154 restricts and limits governmental liability.

Thomsen v. Armfield

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 10, 2024

In § 1983 cases involving qualified immunity, “plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to show (assuming they are true) that the defendants plausibly violated their constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly … established at the time.

Oklahoma Press Ass'n v. Piedmont Publishing Co.

628 P.2d 1163 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1981

to abandon its established facilities, go into the district court and prove why the newspaper can now be reproduced more efficiently in another county. … This is clearly an unreasonable burden to force upon a newspaper.

Manhattan Construction Co. v. District Court of Oklahoma County

517 P.2d 795 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 26, 1973

Manhattan asserts that the uncontrovert-ed facts established through the deposition of Casey, clearly show that Dolese was a subcontractor or independent contractor for Manhattan and therefore was secondarily liable under … The salient question in the case was the determination of the test under Oklahoma law to establish secondary liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws.

Toms v. State

95 Okla. Crim. 60 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 2, 1952

Beddo were qualified as experts. The record does not disclose any attack upon their qualifications as experts. … In such cases not only the facts but the conclusions to which they lead, may be testified to by qualified experts.

Simmons v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 18 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1951

Simmons, could not waive her husband’s right of immunity from an unlawful search and seizure of her husband’s home. On this premise he was eminently correct. See Carignano v. State, 31 Okla. … He testified clearly and convincingly that the crime of burglary had been committed by some one by unlawfully breaking and entering, and stealing and carrying away merchandise of C. R. Anthony & Company.

Walker v. City of Moore

63 O.B.A.J. 1518 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 19, 1992

This is so because a broad interpretation would completely eradicate the government’s general waiver of immunity. … Almost all acts of government employees involve some element of choice and judgment and would thus result in immunity if the discretionary exemption is not narrowly construed.

Opinion No. (2010)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 4, 2010

No qualified investment made in a qualified small business capital company or qualified investment made by a qualified small business capital company in one or more Oklahoma small business ventures during the period of the … Also, the legislation clearly does not contain an emergency clause.

Barnes v. United States

104 F. Supp. 3d 1285 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2015

“[A]n employing [governmental entity] is immune as a matter of law only if an officer’s acts are so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority the officer does not rightfully possess.” … However, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for employee conduct like McFadden’s, which involved premeditated, unlawful conduct that was “so extreme as to constitute a clearly unlawful usurpation of authority

Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc.

67 O.B.A.J. 2930 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1996

Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dist., 441 P.2d 452, 459 (Okla.1968) (affirmance proper unless judgment clearly against weight of evidence, contrary to law or established principles of equity). … In our view, he was qualified by virtue of a mixture or combination of the five factors.

Fields v. City of Tulsa

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2022

Qualified immunity shields public officials from facing the burdens of litigation and is an immunity from suit, not simply a defense to a plaintiff’s claims. Serna v. … The Tenth Circuit applies a two-step analysis to determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Davis v. Davis

708 P.2d 1102 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1985

Thus, the target of § 60.6 is clearly distinct from that of § 1130. … The legal norms applicable to consentless adoptions are well established. E.g., Wade v.

Rodney D. Watson & Associates, P.C. v. Knight

305 P.3d 1039 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 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

Hathaway v. State ex rel. Medical Research & Technical Authority

73 O.B.A.J. 1853 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2002

The State answered, responding affirmatively that: 1) the State was not negligent and therefore not liable; 2) the claim is barred or reduced by the Governmental Tort Claims Act; and, 3) the State is immune from lability … This novel point of procedure was not previously an established legal principle nor is there extant case law from which the legal principle could have been divined.

Rea v. State Ex Rel. Board of Com'rs

29 Okla. 708 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Nov 14, 1911

(3) Is the alleged petition, signed by 15 per cent, of the qualified electors of the proposed road improvement district, the qualified electors of the road improvement district residing within the incorporated towns or cities … per cent, of the expense of said improvement district in the establishment or improving of sucb roads, is that essential?

Stevenson v. Independent School District No. I-038 of Garvin County

393 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 19, 2005

Plaintiffs do not identify the rights, privileges, or immunities of which Chase was allegedly deprived. … Thus, they cannot use § 1983 to do what they cannot do directly under these Acts — establish individual liability. Alsbrook, 184 F.3d at 1011-12 . Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, Counts IV and V, are dismissed.

McCarther v. Grady County

437 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 25, 1977

doctrine of sovereign immunity; and that the County is not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. … It has been clearly established that a county is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 2413 , 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976); Moor v.