sovereign immunity in Oklahoma

2018Department of Highways v. McKnight , 1972 OK 3 , 496 P.2d 775 (a sovereign state cannot be sued except by express legislative enactment, the right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is a public right and must not be treated as relinquished or conveyed away by inference or construction, and statutes must clearly permit the state to be sued or the right to do so will not exist).

2018Department of Highways v. McKnight , 1972 OK 3 , 496 P.2d 775 (a sovereign state cannot be sued except by express legislative enactment, the right of the sovereign state to immunity from suit is a public right and must not be treated as relinquished or conveyed away by inference or construction, and statutes must clearly permit the state to be sued or the right to do so will not exist).

2009However, the Court held the Tribe’s sovereign immunity did not deprive the State of its authority to tax sales to nonmembers of the Tribe at the Tribe’s store. 498 U.S. at 512 , 111 S.Ct. at 911 .

2009However, the Court held the Tribe’s sovereign immunity did not deprive the State of its authority to tax sales to nonmembers of the Tribe at the Tribe’s store. 498 U.S. at 512 , 111 S.Ct. at 911 .

2014Id. {18 Consequently, we do not find the Bank's argument that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide arbitrability to be persuasive.

2014Id. ¶18 Consequently, we do not find the Bank's argument that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide arbitrability to be persuasive.

1942This doctrine of sovereign immunity has been applied in this jurisdiction to actions by the State Bank Commissioners arising in connection with the liquidation of insolvent banks (State v. McLaughlin, 159 Okla. 4 , 12 P. 2d 1106 ; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277 , 188 P. 96 ); even though other states do not extend the doctrine that far.

1942This doctrine of sovereign immunity has been applied in this jurisdiction to actions by the State Bank Commissioners arising in connection with the liquidation of insolvent banks (State v. McLaughlin, 159 Okla. 4 , 12 P. 2d 1106 ; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277 , 188 P. 96 ); even though other states do not extend the doctrine that far.

2025Facilities Auth. , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 Vanderpool , the Legislature enacted the Governmental Tort Claims Act in 1984 (1984 Okla.Sess.Laws ch. 226), currently found in 51 O.S. §§ 151 A. The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2025Facilities Auth. , 2018 OK 90 432 P.3d 233 Vanderpool , the Legislature enacted the Governmental Tort Claims Act in 1984 (1984 Okla.Sess.Laws ch. 226), currently found in 51 O.S. §§ 151 A. The State of Oklahoma does hereby adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2018An alleged violation of federal or constitutional law, statute, common law, or otherwise may not be used for either (1) a OGTCA claim prohibited by the OGTCA, or (2) a constitutional tort claim outside the bounds set by the Legislature in the OGTCA. ¶9 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated "[t]he immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries." 18 Statutory sovereign immunity granted to the State of Oklahoma and its officials and employees does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourtee

2018An alleged violation of federal or constitutional law, statute, common law, or otherwise may not be used for either (1) a OGTCA claim prohibited by the OGTCA, or (2) a constitutional tort claim outside the bounds set by the Legislature in the OGTCA. ¶9 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated "[t]he immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries." 18 Statutory sovereign immunity granted to the State of Oklahoma and its officials and employees does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourtee

2018An alleged violation of federal or constitutional law, statute, common law, or otherwise may not be used for either (1) a OGTCA claim prohibited by the OGTCA, or (2) a constitutional tort claim outside the bounds set by the Legislature in the OGTCA. ¶9 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated "[t]he immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries." 18 Statutory sovereign immunity granted to the State of Oklahoma and its officials and employees does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourtee

2018An alleged violation of federal or constitutional law, statute, common law, or otherwise may not be used for either (1) a OGTCA claim prohibited by the OGTCA, or (2) a constitutional tort claim outside the bounds set by the Legislature in the OGTCA. ¶9 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated "[t]he immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries." 18 Statutory sovereign immunity granted to the State of Oklahoma and its officials and employees does not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourtee

2018Certainly nothing in the text of Article II, Sections 7 and 9 creates a tort cause of action for money damages as a remedy to vindicate violations of those rights, nor do these plaintiffs point to any common law tradition of the State paying money damages to the families of inmates who take their own lives or succumb to illness while in prison. 21 These plaintiffs instead rely primarily on our decision in Washington v. Barry, 2002 OK 45 , 55 P.3d 1036 , where we assumed for purposes of our decision that Article II, Section 9 creates a cause of action for an inmate to bring a tort claim allegin

2018Certainly nothing in the text of Article II, Sections 7 and 9 creates a tort cause of action for money damages as a remedy to vindicate violations of those rights, nor do these plaintiffs point to any common law tradition of the State paying money damages to the families of inmates who take their own lives or succumb to illness while in prison. 21 These plaintiffs instead rely primarily on our decision in Washington v. Barry, 2002 OK 45 , 55 P.3d 1036 , where we assumed for purposes of our decision that Article II, Section 9 creates a cause of action for an inmate to bring a tort claim allegin

2018The Court's opinion today is inconsistent with Perry v. City of Norman , 2014 OK 119 , 341 P.3d 689 , and Perry should be overruled to the extent it allows a constitutional tort claim against the public purse when such a claim is expressly prohibited by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. ¶2 Our 1972 opinion in State ex rel.

2018The Court's opinion today is inconsistent with Perry v. City of Norman , 2014 OK 119 , 341 P.3d 689 , and Perry should be overruled to the extent it allows a constitutional tort claim against the public purse when such a claim is expressly prohibited by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. ¶2 Our 1972 opinion in State ex rel.

2013Id. at *2 n. 1. 1 21 Additionally, in Comanche Nation, the arbitrator specifically construed Part 9 of the compact: [blecause nowhere in any of the Tribes' Class III gaming Compacts is there any material tribal sovereign immunity waiver except "in a court of competent jurisdiction," and because Part 9 preserved, adopted, and incorporated by reference the jurisdictional status quo ante, there is no express waiver anywhere in the Compact[s] of any of the Tribes' sovereign immunity from any relevant Indian country-arising Class III casino-related lawsuit in any Oklahoma state court.

2009Pales argues that this case should be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC, 2009 OK 6 , 212 P.3d 447 . 3 Cossey involved a tort claim by an injured tribal casino patron.

1998Hoover, 909 P.2d at 62 , quoting Lewis v. Sac and Fox, 896 P.2d at 508 . ¶ 5 Shortly after Hoover , this Court was again faced with a sovereign immunity issue.

1998Hoover, 909 P.2d at 62 , quoting Lewis v. Sac and Fox, 896 P.2d at 508 . ¶ 5 Shortly after Hoover , this Court was again faced with a sovereign immunity issue.

2006Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of the admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments. 527 U.S. at 712-713 , 119 S.Ct. at 2246-2247 . ¶ 5 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services is an agency of the Sta

2006Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of the admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments. 527 U.S. at 712-713 , 119 S.Ct. at 2246-2247 . ¶ 5 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services is an agency of the Sta

1999State v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 1954 OK 171 , 278 P.2d 841 .

1995Burwell, 93 P.2d at 1094 (emphasis added). ¶ 16 In 1954 the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the State Insurance Fund was protected by the State's sovereign immunity in State v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 278 P.2d 841 (Okla. 1954).

1976In Schrom v. Oklahoma Industrial Development, 536 P.2d 904 (Okl. 1975), the Supreme Court modified McKnight, supra, to the extent that when a department or agency of the State purchases liability insurance pursuant to authority granted by the Oklahoma Legislature, that the State has waived its governmental immunity, consenting to be sued to the extent of the insurance coverage provided.

1976In Schrom v. Oklahoma Industrial Development, 536 P.2d 904 (Okl. 1975), the Supreme Court modified McKnight, supra, to the extent that when a department or agency of the State purchases liability insurance pursuant to authority granted by the Oklahoma Legislature, that the State has waived its governmental immunity, consenting to be sued to the extent of the insurance coverage provided.

1976The Plaintiffs' assertion that their action is based upon Section 24, Article II, supra, is directly refuted by Harris, supra, which holds a single isolated and unintentional act resulting in damage to personal property does not amount to a taking in a constitutional sense, but is a tortious act for which the government is only consensually liable.

1976The Plaintiffs' assertion that their action is based upon Section 24, Article II, supra, is directly refuted by Harris, supra, which holds a single isolated and unintentional act resulting in damage to personal property does not amount to a taking in a constitutional sense, but is a tortious act for which the government is only consensually liable.

1976State Highway Department, 514 P.2d 938 (Okl. 1973), states: "The doctrine of sovereign immunity of the State from tort liability is extant in Oklahoma." The Court's syllabus in Mountcastle v. State, 193 Okl. 506 , 145 P.2d 392 (1943), states: "A statute authorizing suit against the State does not render the State liable in tort for the negligence or misconduct or wrongful act of officers or agents of the State, where the State is not liable on general principles of law or under any statute or constitutional provision." Accordingly, the State's liability must be based upon a statute or constitu

1976State Highway Department, 514 P.2d 938 (Okl. 1973), states: "The doctrine of sovereign immunity of the State from tort liability is extant in Oklahoma." The Court's syllabus in Mountcastle v. State, 193 Okl. 506 , 145 P.2d 392 (1943), states: "A statute authorizing suit against the State does not render the State liable in tort for the negligence or misconduct or wrongful act of officers or agents of the State, where the State is not liable on general principles of law or under any statute or constitutional provision." Accordingly, the State's liability must be based upon a statute or constitu

1959For, as said in Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, 188 Okl. 506 , 111 P.2d 488, 489 , ‘its transactions are akin to those of private enterprises, and the mere fact that it is an agency of the government does not extend to it the immunity of the sovereign.’ And further, ‘The authority cannot exercise the powers as conferred upon it, avail itself of judicial process and, in the absence of legislation relieving it, escape the usual incidents of litigation that fall upon private litigants.’ Id., 188 Okl. 506 , 111 P.2d 489 .” This court in State Insurance Fund v. Feldgreber, Okl.1957, 317 P

1958In State Insurance Fund v. Feldgreber, Okl., 317 P.2d 203, 205 , we held: "The Legislature of this state by the enactment of 85 O.S.1951 section 133 waived the sovereign immunity of the State Insurance Fund from all suits arising out of any act, deed, matter or things made, omitted, entered into, done or suffered in connection with the State Insurance Fund and in the administration and management of the business and affairs of said Fund." The action here brought by the State Insurance Fund arises out of the management and administration of its insurance business.

1942This doctrine of sovereign immunity has been applied in this jurisdiction to actions by the State Bank Commissioners arising in connection with the liquidation of insolvent banks (State v. McLaughlin, 159 Okla. 4 , 12 P. 2d 1106 ; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277 , 188 P. 96 ); even though other states do not extend the doctrine that far.

1942This doctrine of sovereign immunity has been applied in this jurisdiction to actions by the State Bank Commissioners arising in connection with the liquidation of insolvent banks (State v. McLaughlin, 159 Okla. 4 , 12 P. 2d 1106 ; State v. Smith, 77 Okla. 277 , 188 P. 96 ); even though other states do not extend the doctrine that far.