parol evidence rule in Oklahoma

47 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lone Star Gas Company v. Oakmangreen okla · 1955 · cited in 6 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1964–1994 2 sentences 1970In his second proposition, defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence in violation of the parol evidence rule, citing Lone Star Gas Co. v. Oakman, Okl., 283 P.2d 810 , and similar cases construing 15 O.S.1961, Sec. 137. 1964In Lone Star Gas Company v. Oakman, Okl., 283 P.2d 810 , we held: “Under Section 137, 15 O.S.1951, generally referred to as the parol evidence rule, parol testimony is admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written contract only where either fraud, accident or mistake is pled and proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.	4	6
Dewberry v. Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp.green okla · 1964 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1980–1994 2 sentences 1994Snow v. Winn, Okl., 607 P.2d 678, 682 (1980); Dewberry v. Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp., Okl., 396 P.2d 522, 524 (1964); Lone Star Gas Company v. Oakman, Okl., 283 P.2d 810, 813-814 (1955). 1994Snow v. Winn, Okl., 607 P.2d 678, 682 (1980); Dewberry v. Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp., Okl., 396 P.2d 522, 524 (1964); Lone Star Gas Company v. Oakman, Okl., 283 P.2d 810, 813-814 (1955).	4	4
Snow v. Winngreen okla · 1980 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1985–2003 2 sentences 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 . 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 .	2	4
First National Bank in Durant v. Honey Creek Entertainment Corp.green okla · 2002 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2006–2021 2 sentences 2021Corp. , 2002 OK 11, ¶ 12, 54 P.3d 100, 104 ("It is well-established in Oklahoma that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence of false and fraudulent representations of fact offered to establish fraud in the inducement of the execution of a contract, even when those representations directly contradict the contract provisions); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder , 1970 OK 51, 467 P.2d 470, 472 (where the Court generally discussed application of the parol evidence rule). 2021Corp. , 2002 OK 11, ¶ 12, 54 P.3d 100, 104 ("It is well-established in Oklahoma that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence of false and fraudulent representations of fact offered to establish fraud in the inducement of the execution of a contract, even when those representations directly contradict the contract provisions); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder , 1970 OK 51, 467 P.2d 470, 472 (where the Court generally discussed application of the parol evidence rule).	2	3
Ritter v. Grady Automotive Group, Inc.green ala · 2007 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Grp., Inc. , 973 So. 2d 1058, 1062 (Ala. 2007) (Although a merger clause creates "a presumption that the writing represents an integrated, that is, the final and complete, agreement of the parties," and "invokes the parol evidence rule, which precludes a court from considering extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements in order to change, alter, or contradict the terms of the integrated contract," "[a] merger clause . . . does not bar evidence of contemporaneous collateral agreements between the parties.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 3 Najera also sta 2017Grp., Inc., 973 So.2d 1058, 1062 (Ala. 2007) (Although a merger clause creates "a presumption that the writing represents an integrated, that is, the final and complete, agreement of the parties,” and "invokes the parol evidence rule, which precludes a court from considering extrinsic evidence of pri- or or contemporaneous agreements in order to change, alter, or contradict the terms of the integrated contract,” "[a] merger clause ... does not bar evidence of contemporaneous collateral agreements between the parties.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 3 .	2	2
Warren v. Pulleygreen okla · 1943 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1946–2004 2 sentences 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 . 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 .	1	4
Davon Drilling Company v. Gindergreen okla · 1970 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1984–2021 2 sentences 2021Corp. , 2002 OK 11, ¶ 12, 54 P.3d 100, 104 ("It is well-established in Oklahoma that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence of false and fraudulent representations of fact offered to establish fraud in the inducement of the execution of a contract, even when those representations directly contradict the contract provisions); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder , 1970 OK 51, 467 P.2d 470, 472 (where the Court generally discussed application of the parol evidence rule). 2021Corp. , 2002 OK 11, ¶ 12, 54 P.3d 100, 104 ("It is well-established in Oklahoma that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence of false and fraudulent representations of fact offered to establish fraud in the inducement of the execution of a contract, even when those representations directly contradict the contract provisions); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder , 1970 OK 51, 467 P.2d 470, 472 (where the Court generally discussed application of the parol evidence rule).	1	2
Ollie v. Rainboltgreen okla · 1983 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Regarding similar testimony, the Court in Ollie v. Rainbolt, 1983 OK 79, ¶ 12 , 669 P.2d 275 , 279 held: The parol evidence rule, 15 O.S. [2011] § 137, provides that the execution of a contract in writing supersedes all oral negotiations or stipulations which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. 2015Regarding similar testimony, the Court in Ollie v. Rainbolt, 1983 OK 79, ¶ 12 , 669 P.2d 275 , 279 held: The parol evidence rule, 15 O.S. [2011] § 137, provides that the execution of a contract in writing supersedes all oral negotiations or stipulations which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.	1	2
Walker v. BuildDirect.com Technologies, Inc.green okla · 2015 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Grp., Inc. , 973 So. 2d 1058, 1062 (Ala. 2007) (Although a merger clause creates "a presumption that the writing represents an integrated, that is, the final and complete, agreement of the parties," and "invokes the parol evidence rule, which precludes a court from considering extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements in order to change, alter, or contradict the terms of the integrated contract," "[a] merger clause . . . does not bar evidence of contemporaneous collateral agreements between the parties.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 3 Najera also sta 2017Grp., Inc. , 973 So. 2d 1058, 1062 (Ala. 2007) (Although a merger clause creates "a presumption that the writing represents an integrated, that is, the final and complete, agreement of the parties," and "invokes the parol evidence rule, which precludes a court from considering extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements in order to change, alter, or contradict the terms of the integrated contract," "[a] merger clause . . . does not bar evidence of contemporaneous collateral agreements between the parties.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). 3 Najera also sta	1	1
Brashears v. Edwardsgreen okla · 1953 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985Warren v. Pulley, 193 Okl. 88 , 141 P.2d 288, 290-291 [1943]; Brashears v. Edwards, 208 Okl. 449 , 257 P.2d 295, 298 [1953], 38 . 1985Warren v. Pulley, 193 Okl. 88 , 141 P.2d 288, 290-291 [1943]; Brashears v. Edwards, 208 Okl. 449 , 257 P.2d 295, 298 [1953], 38 .	1	1
Monroe v. Lawrencegreen okla · 1959 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980Monroe v. Lawrence, supra note 2; Dilks v. Carson, supra note 2.	1	1
Boyd Estategreen pa · 1958 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971 2 sentences 1971See In Re Boyd’s Estate, 394 Pa. 225 , 146 A.2d 816, 821 ; Ward v. Zeigler, 285 Pa. 557 , 132 A. 798 (cited opposite footnote 22 in the Annotation at 71 A.L.R. 548 , 556), and the cases cited at 31 C.J.S. 1971See In Re Boyd’s Estate, 394 Pa. 225 , 146 A.2d 816, 821 ; Ward v. Zeigler, 285 Pa. 557 , 132 A. 798 (cited opposite footnote 22 in the Annotation at 71 A.L.R. 548 , 556), and the cases cited at 31 C.J.S.	1	1
Superior Distributing Corp. v. Hargrovegreen okla · 1957 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (58)

Case	Cited	Years
Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis green okla · 1939 2 sentences 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 . 2003This is so because the parol evidence rule is part of the substantive rather than adjective law.” (footnotes omitted) Snow v. Winn, 1980 OK 27, ¶ 12 , 607 P.2d 678, 682 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 12 , 141 P.2d 288, 292 , 193 Okl. 88 ; Investors Royalty Co. v. Lewis, 1939 OK 290, ¶ 8 , 91 P.2d 764, 766 , 185 Okl. 302 . 28 .	5	1943–2003
Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp. green okla · 1993 2 sentences 2004Id. [12] By force of the parol evidence rule pre-contract negotiations and oral discussions are merged into, and superseded by, the terms of an executed writing. 15 O.S.2001 § 137; Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 1993 OK 131 , 863 P.2d 1176, 1180 ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1979). 2004Id. [12] By force of the parol evidence rule pre-contract negotiations and oral discussions are merged into, and superseded by, the terms of an executed writing. 15 O.S.2001 § 137; Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 1993 OK 131 , 863 P.2d 1176, 1180 ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1979).	2	2002–2004
Bredouw v. Jones green okla · 1967 2 sentences 2002Bredouw v. Jones, 1966 OK 93 , 431 P.2d 413, 419 ; A.A. 1976Colonial Jewelry Company v. Jones, 36 Okl. 788 , 127 P. 405 ; Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966); American Trust Company v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 479 , 129 P. 51 (Okl.1912).	2	1976–2002
Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp. green or · 1991 1 sentence 2004Id. [12] By force of the parol evidence rule pre-contract negotiations and oral discussions are merged into, and superseded by, the terms of an executed writing. 15 O.S.2001 § 137; Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 1993 OK 131 , 863 P.2d 1176, 1180 ; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1979).	1	2004–2004
Henry v. Hope green okla · 1957 2 sentences 2004Henry v. Hope, 1957 OK 235, ¶ 5 , 317 P.2d 239, 241 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 6 , 141 P.2d 288, 290 . [14] Pitco, supra note 12 , at ¶ 14, at 546; First Nat. 2004Henry v. Hope, 1957 OK 235, ¶ 5 , 317 P.2d 239, 241 ; Warren v. Pulley, 1943 OK 248, ¶ 6 , 141 P.2d 288, 290 . [14] Pitco, supra note 12 , at ¶ 14, at 546; First Nat.	1	2004–2004
Mid-America Corporation v. Miller green okla · 1962 2 sentences 2002Mid-America Corp. v. Miller, 1962 OK 123 , 372 P.2d 14, 18 ; see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213, comment a (1979). 2002Mid-America Corp. v. Miller, 1962 OK 123 , 372 P.2d 14, 18 ; see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213, comment a (1979).	1	2002–2002
Maney v. Cherry neutral okla · 1935 2 sentences 2002Maney v. Cherry, 1935 OK 115 , 41 P.2d 82, 84 . «11 The Bank argues that if Dufur did make the representations as alleged, the representations amounted only to matters of law. 2002Maney v. Cherry, 1935 OK 115 , 41 P.2d 82, 84 . «11 The Bank argues that if Dufur did make the representations as alleged, the representations amounted only to matters of law.	1	2002–2002
First National Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee green okla · 1993 1 sentence 2000First Nat’l Bank v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, ¶ 13 , 859 P.2d 502, 506-07 .	1	2000–2000
FIRST NAT. BANK AND TRUST v. Kissee green okla · 1993 1 sentence 2000First Nat’l Bank v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, ¶ 13 , 859 P.2d 502, 506-07 .	1	2000–2000
Sims v. Honda Motor Co. green conn · 1993 1 sentence 1995Sims v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., supra, 623 A.2d at 1002-1003 .	1	1995–1995
Fabbro v. Reese green okla · 1952 2 sentences 1994Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463 (Okla.1994); Fabbro v. Reese, 206 Okla. 655 , 246 P.2d 324 (1952); Prudential Fire Ins. 1994Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463 (Okla.1994); Fabbro v. Reese, 206 Okla. 655 , 246 P.2d 324 (1952); Prudential Fire Ins.	1	1994–1994
Crockett v. McKenzie green okla · 1994 1 sentence 1994Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463 (Okla.1994); Fabbro v. Reese, 206 Okla. 655 , 246 P.2d 324 (1952); Prudential Fire Ins.	1	1994–1994
cluster 315689 green ca10 · 1973 1 sentence 1984“The district court compounded this error by failing to consider the truest test of the parties’ intention, the words of the contract clearly providing that the security agreement should cover future indebtedness.” *842 That Oklahoma law comports with that of Texas on this issue is clear. 15 O.S.1981 §§ 137, 154 and 155; Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okl. 207 , 19 P.2d 970 (1933); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, Okl., 467 P.2d 470 (1970); In Re Public Leasing Corp. (10th Cir.1973), 488 F.2d 1369 .	1	1984–1984
Yeager v. Jackson green okla · 1933 2 sentences 1984“The district court compounded this error by failing to consider the truest test of the parties’ intention, the words of the contract clearly providing that the security agreement should cover future indebtedness.” 842 That Oklahoma law comports with that of Texas on this issue is clear. 15 O.S.1981 §§ 137, 154 and 155; Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okl. 207 , 19 P.2d 970 (1933); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, Okl., 467 P.2d 470 (1970); In Re Public Leasing Corp. (10th Cir.1973), 488 F.2d 1369 . 1984“The district court compounded this error by failing to consider the truest test of the parties’ intention, the words of the contract clearly providing that the security agreement should cover future indebtedness.” 842 That Oklahoma law comports with that of Texas on this issue is clear. 15 O.S.1981 §§ 137, 154 and 155; Yeager v. Jackson, 162 Okl. 207 , 19 P.2d 970 (1933); Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, Okl., 467 P.2d 470 (1970); In Re Public Leasing Corp. (10th Cir.1973), 488 F.2d 1369 .	1	1984–1984
Lyons v. Luster green okla · 1960 1 sentence 1976Without such testimony, the trial court either believed that plaintiff’s other evidence was insufficient to meet the burden of proof as set forth in Lyons, supra, or that plaintiff’s other evidence was inadmissible because of the parol evidence rule.	1	1976–1976
Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Jones neutral · 1912 2 sentences 1976Colonial Jewelry Company v. Jones, 36 Okl. 788 , 127 P. 405 ; Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966); American Trust Company v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 479 , 129 P. 51 (Okl.1912). 1976Colonial Jewelry Company v. Jones, 36 Okl. 788 , 127 P. 405 ; Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966); American Trust Company v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 479 , 129 P. 51 (Okl.1912).	1	1976–1976
American Trust Co. v. Chitty green okla · 1912 2 sentences 1976Colonial Jewelry Company v. Jones, 36 Okl. 788 , 127 P. 405 ; Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966); American Trust Company v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 479 , 129 P. 51 (Okl.1912). 1976Colonial Jewelry Company v. Jones, 36 Okl. 788 , 127 P. 405 ; Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966); American Trust Company v. Chitty, 36 Okl. 479 , 129 P. 51 (Okl.1912).	1	1976–1976
Ward v. Zeigler green pa · 1926 2 sentences 1971See In Re Boyd’s Estate, 394 Pa. 225 , 146 A.2d 816, 821 ; Ward v. Zeigler, 285 Pa. 557 , 132 A. 798 (cited opposite footnote 22 in the Annotation at 71 A.L.R. 548 , 556), and the cases cited at 31 C.J.S. 1971See In Re Boyd’s Estate, 394 Pa. 225 , 146 A.2d 816, 821 ; Ward v. Zeigler, 285 Pa. 557 , 132 A. 798 (cited opposite footnote 22 in the Annotation at 71 A.L.R. 548 , 556), and the cases cited at 31 C.J.S.	1	1971–1971
Enola Oil Company v. Bogie neutral okla · 1955	1	1968–1968
Clayton v. Paul green okla · 1956	1	1968–1968
Dawson v. Sears neutral okla · 1940	1	1968–1968
Hill v. Anderson green okla · 1961	1	1967–1967
American Asbestos Products Co. v. Smith Bros. neutral okla · 1937	1	1967–1967
Gillis v. First Nat. Bank of Frederick neutral okla · 1915	1	1967–1967
Farmers' Bank of Roff v. Nichols neutral okla · 1910	1	1967–1967
Stafford v. McDougal green okla · 1935	1	1964–1964
Derr v. Weaver green okla · 1935	1	1962–1962
Mangini v. Wolfschmidt, Ltd. green calctapp · 1958	1	1961–1961
Hinnemann v. . Rosenback green ny · 1868	1	1959–1959
Cardiff v. Spradling neutral okla · 1943	1	1959–1959
Simons v. Douglas' Extr. neutral kyctapp · 1920	1	1959–1959
Mechanics Savings Bank v. Gish neutral iowa · 1925	1	1958–1958
Hodge v. Ellis green tex · 1955	1	1956–1956
Ghormley v. . Hyatt green nc · 1935	1	1955–1955
American Trust Co. v. Walker neutral · 1926	1	1955–1955
Bu-Vi-Bar Petroleum Corporation v. Krow green ca10 · 1930	1	1953–1953
Walker Valley Oil & Gas Co. v. Parks & Palmer green okla · 1928	1	1953–1953
Prudential Fire Ins. Co. v. Stanley green okla · 1942	1	1952–1952
Thompson v. Libby green minn · 1885	1	1946–1946
In Re Assessment of Alleged Omitted Property of Kennedy green okla · 1936	1	1943–1943

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 137 (11) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 157 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 152 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 158 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 160 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 601 (1916–2026) NY 399 (1906–2026) CA 342 (1922–2026) PA 301 (1921–2026) OH 234 (1937–2026) IL 153 (1877–2025) MO 143 (1909–2025) MI 126 (1938–2026) TN 118 (1932–2026) CT 115 (1930–2025) FL 111 (1928–2024) WA 108 (1916–2025) IA 96 (1916–2025) AZ 96 (1925–2025) NC 91 (1920–2026) GA 90 (1910–2025) OR 88 (1915–2021) VA 80 (1920–2025) AL 79 (1927–2018) LA 78 (1930–2018) MA 74 (1923–2026) MN 72 (1922–2025) IN 67 (1951–2020) UT 63 (1921–2026) AR 61 (1930–2024) MD 61 (1932–2025) SC 60 (1924–2025) NJ 59 (1926–2026) ND 53 (1926–2019) ID 49 (1978–2020) MT 48 (1920–2019) MS 47 (1922–2025) OK 47 (1924–2021) DE 46 (1954–2026) NE 46 (1921–2020) KS 46 (1914–2020) RI 42 (1951–2021) WY 41 (1926–2022) ME 38 (1928–2024) WV 35 (1922–2020) CO 35 (1924–2025) NM 34 (1933–2019) WI 31 (1934–2023) VT 29 (1916–2026) SD 26 (1929–2025) HI 25 (1962–2025) NV 21 (1957–2022) DC 20 (1950–2025) KY 19 (1935–2026) AK 18 (1971–2022) NH 16 (1948–2021) VI 3 (1988–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check