Okla. Stat. » Title 10 — CHILDREN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104 (2026)

Renumbered as § 7003-3.4 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 15 cases, 1975–1989 · leading case: York v. Halley, 534 P.2d 363 (Okla. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
York v. Halley, 534 P.2d 363 (Okla. 1975). · cites it 3× “These facts, if true, constituted an emergency situation under 10 O.S.1971, § 1104(b). This statute permitted the court to sign an ex parte order placing temporary custody of the children with Elvin York.”
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “If a petition is filed, there is then [10 O.S.1971 § 1104; 10 O.S.Supp.1976 § 1107] a summary determination of custody pendente lite.”
Application of Tubbs, 620 P.2d 384 (Okla. 1980). “Ross, supra note 4 at 705; the legislature has mandated personal notice to the noncustodial parent in proceedings for a deprived-status adjudication (10 O.S.Supp.1977 § 1104), termination of parental rights (10 O.”
R.C.R. v. State, 776 P.2d 563 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “is concerned, the jurisdictional requirement of service on the child as required by 10 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1104(b) has been met.”
Nickell v. State, 562 P.2d 151 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). “Section 1104 thus appears to be an attempt by the legislature to supply the parents, guardian or person with custody of the child, with the kind of notice required by the United States Supreme Court in Re Gault, supra.”
Crandell v. State, 539 P.2d 398 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “1971, § 1103, nor was summons issued as provided for by 10 O.S.1971, § 1104. In fact, the record shows no attempt by law enforcement officials to notify this juvenile’s parents either formally or informally.”
M.L.R. v. State, 740 P.2d 1201 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “” Title 10 O.S.1981, § 1104 provides in relevant part:.”
Crooks v. Dist. Court of the State of Oklahoma, 581 P.2d 897 (Okla. 1978). “…dismissed. DAVISON, WILLIAMS, IRWIN, BERRY, SIMMS and DOOLIN, JJ., concur. HODGES, C. J., and BARNES, J., dissent. . 10 O.S.Supp.1977, § 1104(d).”
State v. Mirabile, 781 P.2d 332 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989). “1988 § 2005(A); Rule 2, Oklahoma Rules of the District Court; 10 O.S.1981 §§ 1104, 1105, 1606.”
In re G. L. W., 580 P.2d 998 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “The pertinent statutes are 10 O.S.1971, § 1104 and § 1105, which were in effect at the time this proceeding was initiated.”
G.J.I. v. State, 778 P.2d 485 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “10 O.S.1981, §§ 1104, 1105. Following the ruling in R.”
E.C. v. State, 763 P.2d 131 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “10 O.S.1981, § 1104. This being the case, we find no deficiencies in the due process afforded appellant.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(b): 3 cases
York v. Halley, 534 P.2d 363 (Okla. 1975). “These facts, if true, constituted an emergency situation under 10 O.S.1971, § 1104(b). This statute permitted the court to sign an ex parte order placing temporary custody of the children with Elvin York.”
R.C.R. v. State, 776 P.2d 563 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “is concerned, the jurisdictional requirement of service on the child as required by 10 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1104(b) has been met.”
E.C. v. State, 763 P.2d 131 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “10 O.S.1981, § 1104. This being the case, we find no deficiencies in the due process afforded appellant.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(b)(c): 2 cases
G.J.I. v. State, 778 P.2d 485 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “10 O.S.1981, §§ 1104, 1105. Following the ruling in R.”
GJI v. State, 778 P.2d 485 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(d): 1 case
Crooks v. Dist. Court of the State of Oklahoma, 581 P.2d 897 (Okla. 1978). “…dismissed. DAVISON, WILLIAMS, IRWIN, BERRY, SIMMS and DOOLIN, JJ., concur. HODGES, C. J., and BARNES, J., dissent. . 10 O.S.Supp.1977, § 1104(d).”
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.