Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 105 (2026)

Law governing

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim. Added by Laws 1965, c. 98, § 2, emerg. eff. May 12, 1965. Amended by Laws 1970, c. 31, § 1, emerg. eff. Feb. 24, 1970.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 2009 OK 14 (Okla. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 2009 OK 14 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 12× “" Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 105 . Should "period of limitation" in Okla.”

Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2008 OK 67 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 2× “" Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 105 (2001). Defendant argues that application of the borrowing statute will require the comparison of Oklahoma's limitation period for a warranty claim to the warranty limitation period of each state in which a class member resides.”

Kornfeind, W. v. New Werner Holding Co., 241 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “12 O.S. § 105 (“The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim.”

Thornton v. T & W Tire, L.P., 410 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (W.D. Okla. 2006). · cites it 8× “First, even if there is no “borrowing statute” (such as 12 O.S. § 105, discussed next) or other statute to consider so that common law choice of law principles control, in Oklahoma, when the question is which state’s limitations period applies, choice of law principles hold that…”

Benham v. Keller, 673 P.2d 152 (Okla. 1983). “The insurer does not rely here on any disclosed nondomestic norm of law affording it a different time period for the commencement of this action from that prescribed in Oklahoma.”

Reinhard v. Textron, Inc., 516 P.2d 1325 (Okla. 1973). · cites it 4× “” *1327 If 12 O.S.Supp.1970 § 105 is the controlling statute of limitations to which we are referred by the Rhode Island conflicts of law rules, the New York statute of limitations controls, since that is the place where the wrongful transfer by Textron’s transfer agent giving…”

Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys. Inc., 318 F. App'x 721 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “CGB appealed, arguing that Oklahoma’s common-law choice of law rules were abrogated by Oklahoma’s borrowing statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 105 , and that, under the borrowing statute, the applicable statute of repose was Oklahoma’s ten-year statute of repose, id.”

Feldman v. Pioneer Petroleum, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 916 (W.D. Okla. 1985). “Title 12 O.S. § 105 (1981), provides: “The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim.”

Fortenbacher v. Guardsmark, Inc., 867 P.2d 487 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “Fortenbacher’s argument that Michigan’s ten-year limitation period on judgments is applicable under 12 O.S.1991 § 105 because this argument is made for the first time in this review proceeding and was not presented to the trial court.”

Kornfeind, W. v. New Werner Holding Co., 2020 Pa. Super. 266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “12 O.S. § 105 (“The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be that prescribed either by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever last bars the claim.”

Perkins v. Perkins, 541 P.2d 379 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975). “The plaintiff alleges that the cause of action accrued in Kentucky; therefore, 12 O.S.1971, § 105 requires that the fifteen year Kentucky statute of limitations be applied as it last bars the action.”

Consol. Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Sys., Inc., 279 F. App'x 736 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 105 . Should “period of limitation” in Okla.”

Show all 13 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.