The venue of civil actions for damages resulting from the use or operation of motor vehicles, or resulting from the operation of boats or other watercraft in the waters of this state, wherein the defendant or defendants resided in the State of Oklahoma at the time of injury, shall be, at the option of the plaintiff or plaintiffs, in either of the following: 1. In any county of Oklahoma where service of summons can be obtained upon one or more of the defendants as now provided by law. 2. In any county where the damages or a part thereof were sustained. The plaintiff or plaintiffs may cause summons to issue to any county in Oklahoma for service upon one or more of the defendants. When service of summons upon one or more of the defendants cannot be obtained in Oklahoma with the exercise of due diligence, service may then be secured upon such defendant or defendants, as now or hereafter provided in Chapter 59, 47 O.S. 1961, for service upon nonresident motorists. Added by Laws 1953, p. 49, § 1. Amended by Laws 1965, c. 51, § 1, emerg. eff. March 26, 1965; Laws 1965, c. 246, § 1, emerg. eff. June 16, 1965.
Notes of Decisions
Lowder v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 436 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1968).
· cites it 4× “The stipulated issues presented to the trial court were as follows: “(1) Was service of process upon defendant under the non-resident provisions of Title 47 of the Oklahoma statutes, and 12 O.S.1961 § 141, .proper where defendant was a resident of the State of Oklahoma at the…”
Jarchow v. Eder, 433 P.2d 942 (Okla. 1967).
· cites it 5× “The defendant was served with process in this cause by obtaining substituted service upon the Secretary of State in the manner provided by 12 O.S.1961, § 141, and 47 O.S.1961, §§ 391-395, the Nonresident Motorist Act.”
Keller v. Crase, 768 P.2d 905 (Okla. 1989).
· cites it 6× “1961 § 95(3), was rendered inapplicable by the availability of substituted service of process upon the defendant under 12 O.S.1961 § 141. The issue is the game in this case.”
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Cook, 594 P.2d 369 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 2× “That defendant also may be subject to an action brought at the option of the plaintiff, in any county where service may be obtained upon one or more defendants in the action or in any county where the damage was sustained, under 12 O.S.1971 § 141. Under either statute, in…”
Wright v. Keiser, 568 P.2d 1262 (Okla. 1977).
“12 O.S.1971, § 141; 47 O.S. 1971 , §§ 391-403.”
Kennedy v. Henderson, 794 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1990).
· cites it 2× “This court’s own preference for another situs cannot render nugatory those provisions under which the plaintiff in the case below laid venue in Oklahoma County, 12 O.S.1981 § 141. 3 The common-law doctrine of intrastate forum non conveniens may not be used to repeal any venue…”
McCullough v. Boyd, 475 P.2d 610 (Okla. 1970).
· cites it 3× “Thereupon plaintiff served defendant on June 1, 1965, under 12 O.S.Supp.1965, § 141, and 47 O.S.1961 § 391, and 47 O.”
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. Coryell, 483 P.2d 1148 (Okla. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Respondent's final argument is that Title 12 O.S. § 141, as amended by the Laws of 1965, furnishes sufficient statutory authority for venue in this matter over petitioner.”
Harwood v. Woodson, 565 P.2d 1 (Okla. 1977).
“Plaintiffs (plaintiffs) in these tort actions, through the respondent judge, argue (1) a Drumright trial location is closer to the accident site than a Chandler trial location, so more convenient; and (2) 12 O.S.1971, § 141 gives Creek County proper venue with 12 O.”
Powers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 392 P.2d 744 (Okla. 1964).
“1961 § 139, nor was it brought in the county where the damages or a part thereof were sustained as required by 12 O.S.1961 § 141. When the action against the railroad and insurance company defendants failed, the court had no jurisdiction over the persons of these defendants, and…”
Adams v. Stapp, 297 P.2d 389 (Okla. 1956).
“Plaintiff contends, however, that' the enactment of 12 O.S.Supp.1953 § 141, vested the trial court with venue and jurisdiction without regard to proper joinder of the resident defendant because the accident occurred in Pottawatomie County.”
Bramlett v. Dist. Court of Marshall Cnty., 557 P.2d 424 (Okla. 1976).
“1971, § 139, Oklahoma’s general venue statute, and 12 O.S.1971, § 141, which relates to venue in claims arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, venue properly lies at the option of the plaintiffs in the county in which the accident occurred or in any other county where a…”
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.