Okla. Stat. » Title 10 — CHILDREN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101 (2026)

Renumbered as § 7001-1.3 of this title by Laws 1995, c

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

352, § 199, eff. July 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases, 1970–2005 · leading case: J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 11× “1 Child, with regard to whom rights were terminated, had previously been finally adjudged dependent and neglected under the provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., as amended [herein styled juvenile code.”
Schaffer v. Green, 496 P.2d 375 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). · cites it 21× “Petitioner argues that 10 O.S. § 1101 is unconstitutional in that it allows females under the age of 18 years the benefits of juvenile court proceedings, while limiting those same benefits to males under the age of 16 years.”
State ex rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 610 P.2d 256 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “II — Due Process It is next contended that from its inception the juvenile code 10 O.S.Supp. 1979, § 1101, et seq., has conferred a presumption of incompetence to stand trial as an adult on juveniles, whereas 10 O.”
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). · cites it 4× “444]: "An Act relating to children; defining terms; dealing with delinquent children, dependent and neglected children, and children in need of supervision; defining powers of District Courts; prescribing procedure in certain cases; dealing with care and custody of children and…”
Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “By excluding persons sixteen years of age who commit murder from the statutory definition on "child", see 10 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1101(1), we find that the Legislature clearly expressed its intention that such persons should be subject to the full range of punishments prescribed…”
Wilson v. Kane, 852 P.2d 717 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 2× “; the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1988 §§ 1101 et seq. (amended by Okl.”
Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “By excluding persons sixteen years of age who commit murder from the statutory definition of "child", see 10 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1101(1), we find that the Legislature clearly expressed its intention that such *749 persons should be subject to the full range of punishments…”
Freshour v. Turner, 496 P.2d 389 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). · cites it 6× “2d 18 , struck down as unconstitutional 10 O.S.Supp. 1969, § 1101 (a) because of age discrimination between the sexes.”
Dean v. Crisp, 536 P.2d 961 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “1972) in which 10 O.S.Supp. 1969, § 1101 (a) was declared unconstitutional and Radcliff v.”
Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “I Title 10 O.S.1971, § 1101, which was in effect at the time of the contested convictions, 1 defined the term “delinquent child” as a male person under the age of sixteen years.”
Logan v. Smith, 602 P.2d 647 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 4× “" [1] 10 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 1101 et seq. [2] The provisions of 10 O.”
Matter of Daniel, Deborah & Leslie H., 591 P.2d 1175 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 2× “Appellant challenges the constitutionality of 10 O.S.Supp.1972, § 1101(d) 1 as void for vagueness and she contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication.”
Show all 112 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(1): 10 cases
Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “By excluding persons sixteen years of age who commit murder from the statutory definition on "child", see 10 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1101(1), we find that the Legislature clearly expressed its intention that such persons should be subject to the full range of punishments prescribed…”
Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). “By excluding persons sixteen years of age who commit murder from the statutory definition of "child", see 10 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1101(1), we find that the Legislature clearly expressed its intention that such *749 persons should be subject to the full range of punishments…”
Young v. State, 807 P.2d 276 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
H.W. v. State, 759 P.2d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
A.M.H. v. State, 766 P.2d 351 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(2): 1 case
State v. Gray, 803 P.2d 718 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(4): 10 cases
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “444]: "An Act relating to children; defining terms; dealing with delinquent children, dependent and neglected children, and children in need of supervision; defining powers of District Courts; prescribing procedure in certain cases; dealing with care and custody of children and…”
Michael F. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 801 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1990).
Matter of ADB, 778 P.2d 945 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989).
Okun v. State, 856 P.2d 290 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Matter of A.D.B., 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(4)(b): 8 cases
Carl R. v. State, 882 P.2d 582 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
In re JLM, 2005 OK 15, 109 P.3d 336.
Matter of KLH, 858 P.2d 1296 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Matter of CAR, 882 P.2d 582 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Matter of CO, 856 P.2d 290 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(4)(c): 1 case
P.E.K. v. K.V.K., 875 P.2d 451 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(5): 1 case
Miller v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 876 P.2d 747 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(8): 5 cases
In re S.C., 833 P.2d 1249 (Okla. 1992).
Matter of A.D.B., 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991).
M.L.S. v. State, 805 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Matter of ADB, 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991).
MLS v. State, 805 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(9): 2 cases
Matter of A.D.B., 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991).
Matter of ADB, 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(A): 4 cases
Highsaw v. State, 758 P.2d 336 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Dean v. Crisp, 536 P.2d 961 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “1972) in which 10 O.S.Supp. 1969, § 1101 (a) was declared unconstitutional and Radcliff v.”
Evans v. State, 539 P.2d 744 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).
Evans v. State, 541 P.2d 269 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(a): 14 cases
State ex rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 610 P.2d 256 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “II — Due Process It is next contended that from its inception the juvenile code 10 O.S.Supp. 1979, § 1101, et seq., has conferred a presumption of incompetence to stand trial as an adult on juveniles, whereas 10 O.”
Schaffer v. Green, 496 P.2d 375 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). “Petitioner argues that 10 O.S. § 1101 is unconstitutional in that it allows females under the age of 18 years the benefits of juvenile court proceedings, while limiting those same benefits to males under the age of 16 years.”
State ex rel. Coats v. Johnson, 597 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
Dean v. Crisp, 536 P.2d 961 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “1972) in which 10 O.S.Supp. 1969, § 1101 (a) was declared unconstitutional and Radcliff v.”
Poke v. State, 515 P.2d 252 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(b): 3 cases
Mook v. City of Tulsa, 565 P.2d 1065 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
Matter of D.S.H., 549 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
Matter of DSH, 549 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(b)(2): 1 case
J. L. B. v. Yeagley, 632 P.2d 1222 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(c): 7 cases
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 8 of Seiling v. Swanson, 553 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1976).
In re Napier, 532 P.2d 423 (Okla. 1975).
Matter of D.S.H., 549 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
Matter of Adoption of Morrison, 560 P.2d 240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976).
Coleman S. v. Dep't of Institutions, 581 P.2d 884 (Okla. 1978).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(d): 7 cases
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “1 Child, with regard to whom rights were terminated, had previously been finally adjudged dependent and neglected under the provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., as amended [herein styled juvenile code.”
Matter of Daniel, Deborah & Leslie H., 591 P.2d 1175 (Okla. 1979). “Appellant challenges the constitutionality of 10 O.S.Supp.1972, § 1101(d) 1 as void for vagueness and she contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication.”
Matter of Christopher W., 626 P.2d 1320 (Okla. 1980).
Matter of Paul, 555 P.2d 603 (Okla. 1976).
Matter of Adoption of BRB, 905 P.2d 807 (Okla. 1995).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(f): 3 cases
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “1 Child, with regard to whom rights were terminated, had previously been finally adjudged dependent and neglected under the provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., as amended [herein styled juvenile code.”
State v. Siemens, 807 P.2d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
Matter of KS, 807 P.2d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(f)(g): 1 case
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “1 Child, with regard to whom rights were terminated, had previously been finally adjudged dependent and neglected under the provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., as amended [herein styled juvenile code.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1101(g): 3 cases
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “1 Child, with regard to whom rights were terminated, had previously been finally adjudged dependent and neglected under the provisions of 10 O.S.1971 § 1101 et seq., as amended [herein styled juvenile code.”
State v. Siemens, 807 P.2d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
Matter of KS, 807 P.2d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.