Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009 (2026)

Pleading special matters

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS A. CAPACITY. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, he shall do so by negative averment, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge, and he shall have the burden of proof on that issue. B. FRAUD, MISTAKE, CONDITION OF THE MIND. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally. C. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity. D. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR ACT. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. E. JUDGMENT. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board

or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. F. TIME AND PLACE. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter. G. SPECIAL DAMAGE. When items of special damage are claimed, their nature shall be specifically stated. In actions where exemplary or punitive damages are sought, the petition shall not state a dollar amount for damages sought to be recovered but shall state whether the amount of damages sought to be recovered is in excess of or not in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code. H. MOTION TO CLARIFY DAMAGES. If the amount of damages sought to be recovered by the plaintiff is less than the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, the defendant may file, for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction only, a Motion to Clarify Damages prior to the pretrial order to require the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount of damages, if awarded, will not exceed the amount required for diversity. If the court finds that any damages awarded are more likely than not to exceed the amount of damages required for diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff shall amend his or her pleadings in conformance with paragraph 2 of subsection A of Section 2008 of this title. Added by Laws 1984, c. 164, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 1984. Amended by Laws 1987, c. 78, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1987; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 9, § 4, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 9, § 5, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 13 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

Cited in 31 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 7× “The dispositive first impression question presented on certiorari is whether the plaintiff’s amended petition meets the “particularity” requirement of the Oklahoma Pleading Code, 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2009(B), 1 in alleging fraud against multiple defendants.”

A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 936 P.2d 916 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 3× “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”

Fanning v. Brown, 2004 OK 7 (Okla. 2004). “10 Since this case does not involve fraud or mistake, Fanning was only required to set forth a short and plain statement of her claims so that the defendants would have fair notice of what Fanning’s claims were and the grounds upon which they rest.”

Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “" 12 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 2009(B). An action for fraud may not be predicated on false statements when the allegedly defrauded party could have ascertained the truth with reasonable diligence.”

Niemeyer v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 789 P.2d 1318 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 2× “[7] Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 2009 provides in pertinent part: ".”

Bailey v. Campbell, 862 P.2d 461 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the…”

Porter v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 OK 50 (Okla. 2014). “See 12 O.S.2011, § 2009(B). Thus, the district court correctly dismissed the fraud claim.”

Heirshberg v. Slater, 833 P.2d 269 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “" [17] Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 2009 provides: "PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS.”

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Texaco Expl. & Prod., Inc., 2005 OK 52 (Okla. 2005). “” 4 Clearly, § 223(C) authorizes the OTC to forego the administrative assessment and file suit for a determination of tax liability in the district court based on false or fraudulent tax reporting.”

First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993). “1991 §§ 58, 59 respectively, have been specifically pleaded and convincingly proved with clarity as required under 12 O.S.1991 § 2009. 19 Guarantor’s arguments, based on Darrell’s and not bank’s alleged false representations prior to and contemporaneously with guarantor’s…”

Bailey v. Campbell, 829 P.2d 667 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 4× “It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the…”

Sturgeon v. Retherford Publications, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 78 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). “”); 12 O.S.1991 § 2009(G). 4 . In addition to the statutory privilege found at § 1443.”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009(A) — 1 case

Stone v. Est. of Sigman, 970 P.2d 1185 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009(B) — 11 cases

Gay v. Akin, 766 P.2d 985 (Okla. 1988). “The dispositive first impression question presented on certiorari is whether the plaintiff’s amended petition meets the “particularity” requirement of the Oklahoma Pleading Code, 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2009(B), 1 in alleging fraud against multiple defendants.”

A-Plus Janitorial & Carpet Cleaning v. the Employers' Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 936 P.2d 916 (Okla. 1997). “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”

Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). “" 12 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 2009(B). An action for fraud may not be predicated on false statements when the allegedly defrauded party could have ascertained the truth with reasonable diligence.”

Porter v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 OK 50 (Okla. 2014). “See 12 O.S.2011, § 2009(B). Thus, the district court correctly dismissed the fraud claim.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009(C) — 1 case

Mansell v. City of Lawton, 901 P.2d 826 (Okla. 1995).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009(G) — 1 case

Sturgeon v. Retherford Publications, Inc., 1999 OK CIV APP 78 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). “”); 12 O.S.1991 § 2009(G). 4 . In addition to the statutory privilege found at § 1443.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2009(b) — 1 case

BAP, LLP v. Pearman, 2011 OK CIV APP 30 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).

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.