GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING A. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim, shall contain: 1. A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and 2. A demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code shall, without demanding any specific amount of money, set forth only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, except in actions sounding in contract. Every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in an amount that is required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code or less shall specify the amount of such damages sought to be recovered. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. B. DEFENSES; FORM OF DENIALS. A party shall state in short and plain terms his defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies. If he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of an averment, he shall so state and this statement has the effect of a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the averments denied. When a pleader intends in good faith to deny only a part or a qualification of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Unless the pleader intends in good faith to controvert all the averments of the preceding pleading, he may make his denials as specific denials of designated averments or paragraphs or he may generally deny all the averments except such designated averments or paragraphs as he expressly admits; but, when he does so intend to controvert all its averments, he may do so by general denial subject to the obligations set forth in Section 2011 of this title. C. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively: 1. Accord and satisfaction; 2. Arbitration and award; 3. Assumption of risk; 4. Contributory negligence; 5. Discharge in bankruptcy; 6. Duress; 7. Estoppel; 8. Failure of consideration; 9. Fraud; 10. Illegality; 11. Injury by fellow servant; 12. Laches; 13. License; 14. Payment; 15. Release; 16. Res judicata; 17. Statute of frauds; 18. Statute of limitations; 19. Waiver; and 20. Any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court on terms, if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation. D. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided. E. PLEADING TO BE CONCISE AND DIRECT; CONSISTENCY. 1. Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleadings or motions are required.
2. A party may set forth, and at trial rely on, two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or equitable grounds. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in Section 2011 of this title. F. CONSTRUCTION OF PLEADINGS. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 8, eff. Nov. 1, 1984. Amended by Laws 1987, c. 78, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1987; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 9, § 2, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 9, § 3, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 12 was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013) and repealed by Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 9, § 1, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013.
Notes of Decisions
Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 3× “12 O.S.2001, § 2008. The Pleading Code does not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which the claim is based but merely requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and .”
Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 8× “§ 1972 (1989) 3 resulted in damage to the borrower coupled with a claim for relief are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A). 4 ALLEGED FACTS 5 This action arises from an agreement entered in 1990 to construct a truck stop in Oklahoma City.”
Howell's Well Serv. v. Focus Grp. Advisors, 2021 OK 25 (Okla. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, Defendants/Appellants argue: (1) Section 1856(A) of the OUAA requires the right to compel arbitration to be raised by motion and COCA erroneously relied upon 12 O.S.2011, § 2008 to find waiver; and (2) Plaintiffs/Appellees failed to meet their burden of proving…”
Niemeyer v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 789 P.2d 1318 (Okla. 1990).
· cites it 6× “As the direct result of USF & G's interference with her contract, the mother alleged that she had expended unnecessary and substantial attorney fees and that she had suffered emotional distress as a result of USF & G's actions.”
Prough v. Edinger, Inc., 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiffs contend that 12 O.S.1991, § 2008(C) 4 and 2008(D) 5 prohibit the raising of the limitations defense.”
McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008 (A)(2). Rather, she sought relief “in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars.”
Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Federal Rule 8(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Oklahoma’s counterpart, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2008(A)(1), 41 illustrate the modern code’s liberal approach to pleading which requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim” consisting of “simple, concise and…”
Klopfenstein v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 OK CIV APP 16 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Oklahoma’s pleading code requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ so that a defendant has “fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Howell v. James, 818 P.2d 444 (Okla. 1991).
· cites it 4× “’ 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2008 Committee Comment.”
Gaylord Ent. Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30 (Okla. 1998).
· cites it 2× “" See also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 580A comment e (1976). [68] Brock, supra note 3 at 286-287.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(2) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A) — 13 cases
Brown v. Founders Bank & Trust Co., 890 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1994).
“§ 1972 (1989) 3 resulted in damage to the borrower coupled with a claim for relief are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A). 4 ALLEGED FACTS 5 This action arises from an agreement entered in 1990 to construct a truck stop in Oklahoma City.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(1) — 12 cases
Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7 (Okla. 2004).
“12 O.S.2001, § 2008. The Pleading Code does not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which the claim is based but merely requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and .”
Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988).
“Federal Rule 8(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Oklahoma’s counterpart, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2008(A)(1), 41 illustrate the modern code’s liberal approach to pleading which requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim” consisting of “simple, concise and…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(1)(2) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(2) — 6 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A)(l) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(B) — 3 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C) — 12 cases
Howell's Well Serv. v. Focus Grp. Advisors, 2021 OK 25 (Okla. 2021).
“Specifically, Defendants/Appellants argue: (1) Section 1856(A) of the OUAA requires the right to compel arbitration to be raised by motion and COCA erroneously relied upon 12 O.S.2011, § 2008 to find waiver; and (2) Plaintiffs/Appellees failed to meet their burden of proving…”
Prough v. Edinger, Inc., 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993).
“The plaintiffs contend that 12 O.S.1991, § 2008(C) 4 and 2008(D) 5 prohibit the raising of the limitations defense.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(16) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(18) — 4 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(20) — 3 cases
Gaylord Ent. Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30 (Okla. 1998).
“" See also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 580A comment e (1976). [68] Brock, supra note 3 at 286-287.”
Howell's Well Serv. v. Focus Grp. Advisors, 2021 OK 25 (Okla. 2021).
“Specifically, Defendants/Appellants argue: (1) Section 1856(A) of the OUAA requires the right to compel arbitration to be raised by motion and COCA erroneously relied upon 12 O.S.2011, § 2008 to find waiver; and (2) Plaintiffs/Appellees failed to meet their burden of proving…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(5) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(9) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(D) — 16 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(E) — 3 cases
Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988).
“Federal Rule 8(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Oklahoma’s counterpart, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2008(A)(1), 41 illustrate the modern code’s liberal approach to pleading which requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim” consisting of “simple, concise and…”
Prough v. Edinger, Inc., 862 P.2d 71 (Okla. 1993).
“The plaintiffs contend that 12 O.S.1991, § 2008(C) 4 and 2008(D) 5 prohibit the raising of the limitations defense.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(E)(1) — 2 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(E)(2) — 8 cases
Howell v. James, 818 P.2d 444 (Okla. 1991).
“’ 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2008 Committee Comment.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(F) — 4 cases
Niemeyer v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 789 P.2d 1318 (Okla. 1990).
“As the direct result of USF & G's interference with her contract, the mother alleged that she had expended unnecessary and substantial attorney fees and that she had suffered emotional distress as a result of USF & G's actions.”
Klopfenstein v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 OK CIV APP 16 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008).
“Oklahoma’s pleading code requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ so that a defendant has “fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
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.