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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2006 (2026)

Time

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

TIME A. COMPUTATION. 1. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this title, by the rules of any court of this state, or by order of a court of this state, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a legal holiday as defined by Section 82.1 of Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes or any other day when the office of the court clerk does not remain open for public business until the regularly scheduled closing time, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a legal holiday or a day when the office of the court clerk does not remain open for public business until the regularly scheduled closing time. Except for the times provided in Sections 765, 990.3, 1148.4, 1148.5, 1148.5A, and 1756 of this title, when the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than eleven (11) days, intermediate legal holidays and any other day when the office of the court clerk does not remain open for public business until the regularly scheduled closing time, shall be excluded from the computation. 2. For actions filed on or after November 1, 1999, and on or before June 30, 2000, any period of time prescribed or allowed by this title, by the rules of any court, by an order of a court, or by any applicable statute, shall be computed pursuant to the shortest time prescribed by the law in effect before November 1, 1999, the

law in effect prior to the effective date of this act, or this act, unless the court finds that to do so would result in injustice. B. ENLARGEMENT. When by this title or by a notice given thereunder by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion: 1. With or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order; or 2. Upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time set forth in this title for taking an appeal from a judgment, decree or appealable order, or for seeking a new trial, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to correct, open, modify, vacate or reconsider a judgment, decree, or appealable order, except as provided in the sections governing such proceedings. C. FOR MOTIONS - AFFIDAVITS. A written motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof, shall be served not later than five (5) days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by the Oklahoma Statutes, court rules, or by an order of the court. Such an order may for cause shown be made on ex parte application. When a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion. D. ADDITIONAL TIME AFTER SERVICE BY MAIL, THIRD-PARTY COMMERCIAL CARRIER OR ELECTRONIC MEANS. Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, third-party commercial carrier or electronic means, three (3) days shall be added to the prescribed period; provided, however, when a summons and petition are served by mail, a defendant shall serve an answer within twenty (20) days or thirty-five (35) days if pursuant to subsection A of Section 2012 of this title, after the date of receipt or if refused, the date of refusal of the summons and petition by the defendant. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 1984. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 277, § 7, eff. Nov. 1, 1985; Laws 1995, c. 253, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 20, eff. Nov. 1, 1999; Laws 2000, c. 260, § 1, emerg. eff. June 1, 2000; Laws 2001, c. 178, § 1, emerg. eff. May 2, 2001; Laws 2007, c. 12, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Humphries v. Lewis, 2003 OK 12, 67 P.3d 333.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Humphries v. Lewis, 2003 OK 12, 67 P.3d 333. · cites it 5× “I dissent to its conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the late filings.”
Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 5× “5 The Governmental Tort Claims Act 6 does not refer to 12 O.S.1991, § 2006, except generally in 51 O.”
Hall v. The Geo Grp., Inc, 2014 OK 22, 324 P.3d 399. “2d 73 [General provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 2006(B)(2) relating to excusable neglect are not applicable to GTCA]: Johns By and Through Johns v.”
Durant Civic Found., Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma of the Indep. Order of Odd Fellows, 2008 OK CIV APP 54, 191 P.3d 612. · cites it 3× “The fact that we deal here with the disposition of a motion filed pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2006(B), before default judgment was entered, does not require that we abandon the principles on which the vacation of default judgment cases were decided.”
Smith v. Baptist Found. of Oklahoma, 2002 OK 57, 50 P.3d 1132. “Title 12 O.S.2001 § 2006(A) provides in pertinent part: "A.”
Mcbee v. Shanahan Home Design, 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1. “12 O.S.2011, § 2006(A) (extending deadlines which fall on a holiday or other day when a courthouse is closed or closes early).”
State v. Pratt, 816 P.2d 1149 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, the State urged this Court to grant it an enlargement of time pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1985, § 2006(B). Section 2006(B) gives this court, upon a showing of cause, the discretion to enlarge the statutory time period for filing.”
Shaw v. City of Oklahoma City, 2016 OK CIV APP 55, 380 P.3d 894. “Predicting City would argue Shaw’s summary judgment response is filed out of time, he argued it was not, citing 12 O.S. § 2006(D) and Rule 4 of the Rules of the District Court.”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102, 995 P.2d 1118. “The issue presented concerned whether the time period for filing could be extended for excusable neglect pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2006(B)(2). Finding the time limitations of the Tort Claims Act narrowly structured, the Court refused to allow an extension of the statutory…”
Act South, LLC v. Reco Elec. Co., 2013 OK CIV APP 23, 299 P.3d 505. “4(B) either the application for fees or a motion for extension of time to file pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2006(B). The fact that a party may obtain an extension of time beyond the initial 30-day period in which to file its fee application argues against Plaintiffs' position that the…”
Meyer v. Engle, 2016 OK CR 1, 369 P.3d 37. “Title 12 O.S.2011, § 2006 adopts the "business" day for the computation of time in civil cases.”
Pitts v. State, 2003 OK CR 21, 78 P.3d 551. “12 O.S.Supp.1985, § 2006(B) (emphasis added).”
Show all 41 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2006(A): 8 cases
Smith v. Baptist Found. of Oklahoma, 2002 OK 57, 50 P.3d 1132. “Title 12 O.S.2001 § 2006(A) provides in pertinent part: "A.”
Mcbee v. Shanahan Home Design, 2021 OK 60, 499 P.3d 1. “12 O.S.2011, § 2006(A) (extending deadlines which fall on a holiday or other day when a courthouse is closed or closes early).”
Arrow Trucking Co. v. Lewis, 2004 OK 18, 90 P.3d 997.
State v. Van Lear, 813 P.2d 555 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
George v. Town of Bearden, 700 P.2d 1030 (Okla. Civ. App. 1985).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2006(B): 9 cases
Humphries v. Lewis, 2003 OK 12, 67 P.3d 333. “I dissent to its conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the late filings.”
Act South, LLC v. Reco Elec. Co., 2013 OK CIV APP 23, 299 P.3d 505. “4(B) either the application for fees or a motion for extension of time to file pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2006(B). The fact that a party may obtain an extension of time beyond the initial 30-day period in which to file its fee application argues against Plaintiffs' position that the…”
State v. Pratt, 816 P.2d 1149 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “Alternatively, the State urged this Court to grant it an enlargement of time pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1985, § 2006(B). Section 2006(B) gives this court, upon a showing of cause, the discretion to enlarge the statutory time period for filing.”
Pitts v. State, 2003 OK CR 21, 78 P.3d 551. “12 O.S.Supp.1985, § 2006(B) (emphasis added).”
Durant Civic Found., Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma of the Indep. Order of Odd Fellows, 2008 OK CIV APP 54, 191 P.3d 612. “The fact that we deal here with the disposition of a motion filed pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2006(B), before default judgment was entered, does not require that we abandon the principles on which the vacation of default judgment cases were decided.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2006(B)(2): 6 cases
Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996). “5 The Governmental Tort Claims Act 6 does not refer to 12 O.S.1991, § 2006, except generally in 51 O.”
Hall v. The Geo Grp., Inc, 2014 OK 22, 324 P.3d 399. “2d 73 [General provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 2006(B)(2) relating to excusable neglect are not applicable to GTCA]: Johns By and Through Johns v.”
Humphries v. Lewis, 2003 OK 12, 67 P.3d 333. “I dissent to its conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the late filings.”
Durant Civic Found., Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma of the Indep. Order of Odd Fellows, 2008 OK CIV APP 54, 191 P.3d 612. “The fact that we deal here with the disposition of a motion filed pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2006(B), before default judgment was entered, does not require that we abandon the principles on which the vacation of default judgment cases were decided.”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102, 995 P.2d 1118. “The issue presented concerned whether the time period for filing could be extended for excusable neglect pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2006(B)(2). Finding the time limitations of the Tort Claims Act narrowly structured, the Court refused to allow an extension of the statutory…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2006(D): 8 cases
Shaw v. City of Oklahoma City, 2016 OK CIV APP 55, 380 P.3d 894. “Predicting City would argue Shaw’s summary judgment response is filed out of time, he argued it was not, citing 12 O.S. § 2006(D) and Rule 4 of the Rules of the District Court.”
Strange v. Troutt, 2017 OK CIV APP 5.
In Re Amendment of Oklahoma Supreme Court, Rule 1.20 & 1.22, 2023 OK 28.
In Re Amendment of Oklahoma Supreme Court, Rule 1.20 & 1.22, 2023 OK 28.
Shaw v. City of Oklahoma City, 2016 OK CIV APP 55.
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.