immunity defense in Oklahoma

2004Defamatory words published by the parties, counsel or witnesses, in due course of a judicial proceeding and which are connected with, or relevant or material to, the cause in hand or subject of inquiry, constitute an absolutely privileged communication, and no action will lie therefor, however false or malicious they may in fact be."); Kirschstein v. Haynes, 1990 OK 8 , 788 P.2d 941 (the immunity doctrine (a) applies not only to defamation suits, but also to suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the same circumstances as the defamation claim, and (b) encompasses c

2004Defamatory words published by the parties, counsel or witnesses, in due course of a judicial proceeding and which are connected with, or relevant or material to, the cause in hand or subject of inquiry, constitute an absolutely privileged communication, and no action will lie therefor, however false or malicious they may in fact be."); Kirschstein v. Haynes, 1990 OK 8 , 788 P.2d 941 (the immunity doctrine (a) applies not only to defamation suits, but also to suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the same circumstances as the defamation claim, and (b) encompasses c

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [25] 1995 OK 35 , 894 P.2d 1096 . [26] Id. at ¶27, at 1101.

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [25] 1995 OK 35 , 894 P.2d 1096 . [26] Id. at ¶27, at 1101.

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [7] Briscoe, supra note 6 , 460 U.S. at 345-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 1121 . [8] Hammett v. Hunter, 1941 OK 253, ¶ 0 , 117 P.2d 511 , 511 syl.1 ("1.

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [7] Briscoe, supra note 6 , 460 U.S. at 345-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 1121 . [8] Hammett v. Hunter, 1941 OK 253, ¶ 0 , 117 P.2d 511 , 511 syl.1 ("1.

2022I would add that the trial court can properly consider, in connection with its ruling on an immunity claim, any relevant portions of a transcript from preliminary examination, if offered by a party in the Stand Your Ground hearing. ¶3 The Court's misguided and incoherent policy of reviewing Stand Your Ground immunity claims on direct appeal from a conviction, from which I dissented when it was adopted in McNeely v. State , 2018 OK CR 18 422 P.3d 1272 See Okla.

2022I would add that the trial court can properly consider, in connection with its ruling on an immunity claim, any relevant portions of a transcript from preliminary examination, if offered by a party in the Stand Your Ground hearing. ¶3 The Court's misguided and incoherent policy of reviewing Stand Your Ground immunity claims on direct appeal from a conviction, from which I dissented when it was adopted in McNeely v. State , 2018 OK CR 18 422 P.3d 1272 See Okla.

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2017Simonson v. Schaefer , 2013 OK 25, ¶ 3, 301 P.3d 413, 414 (allegations of petition applied to a 12 O.S. § 2012 (B)(6) motion raising an immunity defense for alleged tort). 17 85A O.S.Supp.2013 § 1 states in part: "Sections 1 through 106 and 150 through 168 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "'Administrative Workers' Compensation Act.'" 18 Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. Coburn , 2016 OK 120, n. 49, 386 P.3d 628, citing Torres v. Seaboard Foods , L.L.C., 2016 OK 20, ¶ 11, 373 P.3d 1057, 1065 and Yocum v. Greenbriar Nursing Home , 2005 OK 27, ¶ 10, 130 P.3d 213, 219. 19 1989 OK 22,

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [7] Briscoe, supra note 6 , 460 U.S. at 345-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 1121 . [8] Hammett v. Hunter, 1941 OK 253, ¶ 0 , 117 P.2d 511 , 511 syl.1 ("1.

2004Rep. 1113 (K.B.1614) as early English authority for the immunity doctrine. [7] Briscoe, supra note 6 , 460 U.S. at 345-46 , 103 S.Ct. at 1121 . [8] Hammett v. Hunter, 1941 OK 253, ¶ 0 , 117 P.2d 511 , 511 syl.1 ("1.

1997Recognizing that an Indian tribe is immune from an action for damages absent its consent and citing United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 , 60 S.Ct. 653 , 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940), Justice Stevens expressed doubt that the immunity extends to cases arising from a tribe's conduct of commercial activity outside its own territory. [4] *1147 Neither the opinion, nor the concurring opinion, in the Citizen Band Potawatomi case teaches that a federally recognized Indian tribe is absolutely immune from suit for money judgment as we allowed and affirmed in Aircraft I.

1997Recognizing that an Indian tribe is immune from an action for damages absent its consent and citing United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 , 60 S.Ct. 653 , 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940), Justice Stevens expressed doubt that the immunity extends to cases arising from a tribe's conduct of commercial activity outside its own territory. [4] *1147 Neither the opinion, nor the concurring opinion, in the Citizen Band Potawatomi case teaches that a federally recognized Indian tribe is absolutely immune from suit for money judgment as we allowed and affirmed in Aircraft I.

1997Following Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 , 100 S.Ct. 2069 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) and Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976), the Court recognized that the state's taxing power may reach inside of Indian country and that the immunity doctrine does not shield an Indian tribe from all state-law obligations to assist in the collection of state taxes.

1997Following Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 , 100 S.Ct. 2069 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) and Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976), the Court recognized that the state's taxing power may reach inside of Indian country and that the immunity doctrine does not shield an Indian tribe from all state-law obligations to assist in the collection of state taxes.

1997Following Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 , 100 S.Ct. 2069 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) and Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976), the Court recognized that the state's taxing power may reach inside of Indian country and that the immunity doctrine does not shield an Indian tribe from all state-law obligations to assist in the collection of state taxes.

1997Following Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 , 100 S.Ct. 2069 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) and Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 1634 , 48 L.Ed.2d 96 (1976), the Court recognized that the state's taxing power may reach inside of Indian country and that the immunity doctrine does not shield an Indian tribe from all state-law obligations to assist in the collection of state taxes.

1945The question of the force of such a statute where immunity obtains, as here, was before the Supreme Court of Indiana in the leading case of Wilson v. Donaldson, *226 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N. E. 250 , 10 A. S. R. 48, 3.

1945The question of the force of such a statute where immunity obtains, as here, was before the Supreme Court of Indiana in the leading case of Wilson v. Donaldson, *226 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N. E. 250 , 10 A. S. R. 48, 3.

1915Ed. 960 , wherein it was held: “Neither the Secretary of War nor the Attorney General, nor any subordinate of either, can waive the exemption of the United States from judicial process, or submit the United States or its property to the jurisdiction of a court in a suit brought against its officers; and an answer for it filed by the district attorney in pursuance of instructions to appear and defend its interests, given by the Attorney General, is not a voluntary submission by the United States to the jurisdiction of the court.” In the cases of Lankford v. Schroeder and Farish v. Banking Board