Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 100 (2026)

Limitation of new action after reversal or failure

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

otherwise than on merits. If any action is commenced within due time, and a judgment thereon for the plaintiff is reversed, or if the plaintiff fail in such action otherwise than upon the merits, the plaintiff, or, if he should die, and the cause of action survive, his representatives may commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or failure although the time limit for commencing the action shall have expired before the new action is filed. R.L. 1910, § 4662. Amended by Laws 1975, c. 44, § 1, emerg. eff. March 31, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 169 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Cole v. Josey, 2019 OK 39 (Okla. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cole v. Josey, 2019 OK 39 (Okla. 2019). · cites it 22× “She asserted the first petition was deemed dismissed on the 181st day, October 27, 2015, and Cole did not refile her petition within one year of that date pursuant to the "savings statute," 12 O.S. 2011, § 100. The district court agreed with Josey and granted her motion to…”
Cruse v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 910 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 14× “ALMA WILSON, Chief Justice: The issue presented is whether a timely filed governmental tort claims action may be refiled pursuant to 12 O.S.1991, § 100. We hold that 12 O.S.1991, § 100 operates to allow the refiling of a timely-filed governmental tort claims action within one…”
Ross v. Kelsey Hayes, Inc., 825 P.2d 1273 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 14× “The question presented is whether an action dismissed without prejudice, in which the defendants have not been served with summons, may be refiled within one *1275 year of the dismissal pursuant to the savings clause of 12 O.S.1981 § 100. 1 We find that it may.”
Sisk v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 2003 OK 69 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 7× “On 26 August 1997 Sisk dismissed his action without prejudice and then refiled it by invoking the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 100, [2] the savings statute.”
Sommer v. Sommer, 1997 OK 123 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 12× “[19] Among various provisions that bear this word is the savings statute, 12 O.S.1991 § 100, [20] which authorizes the recommencement of an action that failed "otherwise than on the merits.”
Matter of Est. of Speake, 743 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 5× “I THE TIME LIMITS FOR A POST-PROBATE WILL CHALLENGE ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT ON THE PROVISIONS OF 12 O.S.1981 § 100 BEFORE THAT STATUTE’S ADOPTION IN OKLAHOMA The time limits that govern the post-probate contest of a will, 58 O.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Payne, 2017 OK 95 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 9× “No one questions that if Ukpaka wanted to refile her claim, the savings statute at 12 O.S. § 100 would allow her up to one year from the date of the dismissal to do so.”
Valley Vista Dev. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 6× “The four questions presented are: (1) Whether after a void judgment has been rendered, the trial court may take judicial notice of findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in such judgment in a subsequent proceeding; (2) Whether the savings *346 clause of 12 O.S.1981 §…”
Hunter v. Echols, 820 P.2d 450 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 5× “Echols and Rahe each argue on certiorari the question of whether filing a petition in a previously dismissed suit is sufficient to invoke the savings provision of 12 O.S.1981 § 100. 5 Under the facts presented here, the dispositive issue is whether an amended petition filed…”
Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc., 2008 OK 87 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 2× “Invoking the provisions of 12 O.S.2001 § 100, 3 plaintiffs recommenced their action *1287 on 12 August 2005.”
Grider v. USX Corp., 847 P.2d 779 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 3× “That issue requires our interpretation of 12 O.S.1981 § 100, the “savings” statute which allows an additional year to bring a new action after a suit fails for reasons other than upon its merits.”
Baylis v. City of Tulsa, 780 P.2d 686 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 4× “1988), the savings clause of 12 O.S.1981 § 100 was held to have extended the time within which to re-file an action held void under these provisions.”
Show all 169 citing cases →
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.