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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1441 (2026)

Libel defined

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

Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends. R.L. 1910, §§ 2380, 4956.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Gaylord Ent. Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30 (Okla. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaylord Ent. Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30 (Okla. 1998). · cites it 2× “[73] In Brock, supra note 3 at 291, the respondents argued that CALA's publication (of the November 14 letter) is libelous per se because it falsely accuses the plaintiff trial lawyers of practising extortion.”
Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir. 2010). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1441 . To state a claim for libel, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant made: “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning [plaintiff]; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; and (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part…”
Weaver v. Pryor Jeffersonian, 569 P.2d 967 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 2× “Motion for summary judgment should be denied if the facts concerning any issue raised by the pleadings and affidavits thereinafter filed in the case are conflicting, or if reasonable men, in exercise of fair and impartial judgment, might reach different conclusions from…”
Krimbill v. Talarico, 417 P.3d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). “12 O.S.2011 § 1441. ¶46 Section 1441 can be interpreted as stating that it is the duty of a plaintiff to show unprivileged publication as part of a prima facie case.”
Greenwood Trust Co. v. Conley, 938 P.2d 1141 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 2× “§§ 27-1-801 to -803 (1995); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §§ 1441 to -1442 (West 1993); S.”
Brock v. Thompson, 1997 OK 127 (Okla. 1997). “12 O.S.1991 § 1441. 49 . Fawcett Publications, Inc.”
Metcalf v. KFOR-TV, INC., 828 F. Supp. 1515 (W.D. Okla. 1992). · cites it 3× “1 (defendant “may prove that the matter charged as defamatory was true”).”
Bird Constr. Co. v. Oklahoma City Hous. Auth., 2005 OK CIV APP 12 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 12 O.S.2001 § 1441. Libel is a form of defamation, which requires “(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another, (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party, (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (d) either actionability…”
Wilson v. City of Tulsa, 2004 OK CIV APP 44 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). “2d 322 ; see also 12 O.S.2001 § 1441. As a public official, Wilson had to prove that the press release was published “with actual malice (with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false).”
Nelson v. Am. Hometown Publ'g, Inc., 2014 OK CIV APP 57 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014). “" Id. ¶ 35. 1 42 Unlike libel per se where the publication is susceptible only to a defamatory meaning, a "publication is deemed libelous per quod if the words are reasonably susceptible of both a defamatory and an innocent meaning," meaning that extrinsic facts are required to…”
Sturgeon v. Retherford Publications, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 78 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). “” 12 O.S.1991 § 1441. A writing is libelous per se “when the language used therein is susceptible of but one meaning, and that an opprobrious one, and the publication on its face shows that the derogatory statements, taken as a whole, refer to the plaintiff.”
Miskovsky v. Tulsa Tribune Co., 678 P.2d 242 (Okla. 1983). “When viewed even in their most derogatory sense as related to the plaintiff, while possibly unflattering or even repre-hensively false in their conclusions, they are expressions of opinion, privileged under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Show all 36 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.