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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1083 (2026)

Dismissal of any actions in which no pleadings have been

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

filed for a year. Any action in which no pleading has been filed or other action taken for a year and in which no motion or demurrer has been pending during any part of said year shall be dismissed without prejudice by the court on its own motion after notice to the parties or their

attorneys of record; providing, the court may upon written application and for good cause shown, by order in writing allow the action to remain upon its docket. Added by Laws 1965, c. 299, § 5. Amended by Laws 2007, c. 12, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Heiman v. Atl. Richfield Co., 807 P.2d 257 (Okla. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heiman v. Atl. Richfield Co., 807 P.2d 257 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “At the disposition docket, any action which is not at issue and in which no action has been taken for a year shall be dismissed as prescribed by 12 O.S.1971 § 1083, [infra ] subject to the proviso contained therein.”
Baylis v. City of Tulsa, 780 P.2d 686 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “The time limit for the plaintiff’s compliance with § 362 might conceivably be found to be that in 12 O.S.1981 § 1083, infra. By the terms of this statute the plaintiffs may have at least one year to secure the action’s termination by converting the jury verdict or merits…”
Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telecom, LLC, 671 F. App'x 1026 (10th Cir. 2016). “On August 24, the state court issued a “Notice of Disposition Docket” in connection with this case pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1083 , indicating that the court would dismiss the case without prejudice “unless counsel appears and shows good cause why the case should be…”
Cornett v. Carr, 2013 OK 30, 302 P.3d 769. “There is no valid reason to duplicate statutory requirements by amending Rule 9. Restrictions and deadlines relating to service of summons or diligence in prosecution are covered by statute as set forth in 12 O.”
Bicknell v. Randolph, 2005 OK CIV APP 7, 105 P.3d 843. · cites it 2× “(collectively Physicians) pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 1083 and Rule 9, Rules for the District Court, 12 O.”
Boston v. Buchanan, 2003 OK 114, 89 P.3d 1034. · cites it 18× “The primary issue on certiorari is the difference between dismissing an action pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 1083, and dismissing an action in the exercise of a trial court's inherent power as set forth in the first two sentences of Rule 9(b) of the Rules for District Courts.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kindle, 2014 OK CIV APP 67, 332 P.3d 302. “A court shall dismiss actions in which no action has been taken for a year as provided in 12 O.S.1981 § 1083." Id. n. 1 (Combs, J., dissenting).”
Campbell v. Pharr, 916 P.2d 266 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “, and 12 O.S.1991 § 1083 directing that the court “shall” dismiss an action under the circumstances stated in Rule 9(b) and section 1083, defendants’ counsel argues that such dismissals cannot be vacated pursuant to either the “term-time” power under 12 O.”
Swanson v. Gick, 805 P.2d 662 (Okla. 1991). “Okla.Stat. tit. 12, § 1083 (1981). This authority is reflected in Rule 9(b) of the Rules for District Courts which requires: Where an action is not diligently prosecuted, the court may require the plaintiff to show why the action should not be dismissed.”
Morris v. City of Oklahoma City, 2010 OK CIV APP 27, 232 P.3d 921. “A court shall dismiss actions in which no action has been taken for a year as provided in 12 O.S.1981 § 1083. 4 ¶ 15 Here, Plaintiffs suit was based upon an event which had occurred almost six years *925 previously.”
Thomas v. Rios, 548 F. App'x 508 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “Thomas argued that two Oklahoma statutes, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 1083 and 2003.1(D), required the state district court to dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice.”
Meadors v. Majors, 875 P.2d 1166 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “Majors relies on 12 O.S.1991 § 1083 which provides in pertinent part: .”
Show all 15 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.