First Amendment immunity in Oklahoma

2025Means v. Solem , 457 F.Supp. 1256 (D.S.D. 1978) (affirming constitutionality of riot statute against First Amendment challenge); Dakota Rural Action v. Noem , 416 F.Supp.3d 874 , 890-91 (D.S.D. 2019) (noting South Dakota Supreme Court's interpretation of criminal intent element of section 22-10-1). ¶6 We approve the South Dakota Supreme Court's interpretation of the element of intent necessary for a conviction of riot and adopt it as the law of Oklahoma.

2025This interpretation is consonant with our consideration of the riot statute in, inter alia , Wright v. State, 1973 OK CR 9 505 P.2d 507 Johnson v. State, 1919 OK CR 278 183 P. 926 a common design and intent ," used or threatened violence "accompanied by immediate power of execution")(emphasis added). ¶7 We also find ourselves to this extent in agreement with the U.S. District Court in Terry v. Drummond , 717 F.Supp.3d 1106 (W.D.

2025This interpretation is consonant with our consideration of the riot statute in, inter alia , Wright v. State, 1973 OK CR 9 505 P.2d 507 Johnson v. State, 1919 OK CR 278 183 P. 926 a common design and intent ," used or threatened violence "accompanied by immediate power of execution")(emphasis added). ¶7 We also find ourselves to this extent in agreement with the U.S. District Court in Terry v. Drummond , 717 F.Supp.3d 1106 (W.D.

2025This interpretation is consonant with our consideration of the riot statute in, inter alia , Wright v. State, 1973 OK CR 9 505 P.2d 507 Johnson v. State, 1919 OK CR 278 183 P. 926 a common design and intent ," used or threatened violence "accompanied by immediate power of execution")(emphasis added). ¶7 We also find ourselves to this extent in agreement with the U.S. District Court in Terry v. Drummond , 717 F.Supp.3d 1106 (W.D.

2023Id. ¶16 The appellate record demonstrates that the Petition filed by Mr. Roberts was not verified.

2023Id. ¶16 The appellate record demonstrates that the Petition filed by Mr. Roberts was not verified.

1999Requiring a resignation appears to be the least restrictive means to achieve the statute's ends. 4 See Morial, 565 F.2d at 304 : While it is true that a first amendment claim typically takes the form of an assertion that the government cannot deprive the plaintiff of some freedom and an equal protection claim takes the form of an assertion that the government may not single out the class of which the plaintiff is a member for deprivation, it is equally true that every first amendment claim can be transformed into an equal protection claim merely by focusing upon the classification that every l

1997Id. at 615. (2) Sierra Club, supra note 15 at 938.

1997Id. at 615. (2) Sierra Club, supra note 15 at 938.

1984Miskovsky v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 654 P.2d at 591 . " It is proof of the guilty knowledge prior to publication that demonstrates the First Amendment immunity does not apply; nothing more is required to escape defendant's summary judgment and nothing less is permitted." Jurkowski v. Crawley, 637 P.2d at 62 (emphasis added).

1984Miskovsky v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 654 P.2d at 591 . " It is proof of the guilty knowledge prior to publication that demonstrates the First Amendment immunity does not apply; nothing more is required to escape defendant's summary judgment and nothing less is permitted." Jurkowski v. Crawley, 637 P.2d at 62 (emphasis added).

1981This balancing test first made its appearance in the case of Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 358 U.S. 910 , 79 S.Ct. 237 , 3 L.Ed.2d 231 (1958).

1981The indispensability of evidence, and later proof, of the conclusion that the defendant in fact, (subjectively) entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication was emphasized in the Herbert v. Lando decision found at 99 S.Ct. 1635 (1979).

1981The indispensability of evidence, and later proof, of the conclusion that the defendant in fact, (subjectively) entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication was emphasized in the Herbert v. Lando decision found at 99 S.Ct. 1635 (1979).

1981This balancing test first made its appearance in the case of Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 358 U.S. 910 , 79 S.Ct. 237 , 3 L.Ed.2d 231 (1958).

1981This balancing test first made its appearance in the case of Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 358 U.S. 910 , 79 S.Ct. 237 , 3 L.Ed.2d 231 (1958).

1976A more recent case is Times Newspapers Limited [of Great Britain], v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 387 F.Supp. 189 [D.C.Cal.1974], wherein the court, faced with the First Amendment claim of the petitioner to be present at the taking of depositions, ruled that although the English press had standing to assert the First Amendment protections, their claimed right of attendance at the taking of the deposition could not be sustained.

1976A more recent case is Times Newspapers Limited [of Great Britain], v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 387 F.Supp. 189 [D.C.Cal.1974], wherein the court, faced with the First Amendment claim of the petitioner to be present at the taking of depositions, ruled that although the English press had standing to assert the First Amendment protections, their claimed right of attendance at the taking of the deposition could not be sustained.