Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1110 (2026)
Renumbered as § 7003-3.8 of this title by Laws 1995, c
✓ current as of July 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 14
cases, 1972–2002 · leading case: Wilson v. Foster, 595 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1979).
Wilson v. Foster, 595 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1979). “When this procedure is followed on consolidation everyone within the affected class will receive the same treatment under 10 O.S.Supp. 1977, § 1110 [jury trial] and shall stand on equal footing when, in a later non-jury hearing, the court reaches for adjudication the…”
State in Interest of Dino, 359 So. 2d 586 (La. 1978). “§ 10-1220(1); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 10, § 1110; S.Dak. Compiled Laws Ann.”
J. v. v. State, Dep't of Institutions, Soc. & Rehabilitative Servs., 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). “10 O.S.1971 § 1110 provides: “In hearings to determine whether a child is within the purview of this Act, the child informed against, or any person interested in such child, shall have the right to demand a trial by jury, which shall be granted as in other cases, unless waived,…”
State ex rel. D.J., 817 So. 2d 26 (La. 2002). “§ 32-1 -31A (Michie 1988); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1110 (West 1987); Tex.”
Matter of Betty C., 632 P.2d 412 (Okla. 1981). “On August 7, 1979, Appellants filed a written demand for a jury trial, pursuant to 10 O.S.Supp. 1977, § 1110. Accordingly, the trial court set the matter on the next regularly scheduled jury docket for September 27, 1979.”
Alford v. Carter, 504 P.2d 436 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). “Initially, he contends that it was error for the court to refuse a jury trial at the disposi-tional hearing, and takes the position that the policy established by the Oklahoma Legislature was to grant a jury trial on request in a juvenile proceeding, and cites 10 O.S.1971, §…”
In re J. L. M., 598 P.2d 243 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “1978, § 1103, and that his demand for a jury trial should have been granted in accordance with 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1110. 2 The District Attorney argues that the pleading was merely a motion seeking a change in disposition, and not a petition for adjudication, so that neither…”
Matter of JLM, 598 P.2d 243 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “1978, § 1103, and that his demand for a jury trial should have been granted in accordance with 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1110. [2] The District Attorney argues that the pleading was merely a motion seeking a change in disposition, and not a petition for adjudication, so that neither…”
Pfotenhauer v. Hunter, 536 P.2d 923 (Okla. 1975). “ed by Nevada statute; (2) that Rachel does not fall within the provisions of the Interstate Compact on Juveniles and therefore is not subject to the provisions thereof; (3) that the order of Respondent setting the jury trial in September and ordering the child returned to Nevada…”
State Ex Rel. Dj, 817 So. 2d 26 (La. 2002). “§ 32-1 -31A (Michie 1988); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1110 (West 1987); Tex.”
State v. Siemens, 807 P.2d 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “When Article 2, Section 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution was amended, effective January 13, 1969, 10 O.S.Supp.1969 § 1110 was enacted, providing for jury trials in adjudicatory hearings, i.”
MLS v. State, 805 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “*672 The case then may proceed under 10 O.S.1981, § 1110. I write primarily to point out these distinctions between the two types of proceedings so that there will no confusion when this case comes up for consideration in the district court.”
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.