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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2101 (2026)

Short title

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

This act shall be known and may be cited as the Oklahoma Evidence Code. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 101, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Lee v. Bueno, 2016 OK 97 (Okla. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lee v. Bueno, 2016 OK 97 (Okla. 2016). · cites it 2× “Indeed, that is the very purpose of Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S. § 2101 et seq. III. 12 O.S. 2011 § 3009.”
Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 2× “§§ 2602 and 2701, two provisions contained in the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.2001, § 2101 et seq., as amended. [17] ¶ 58 Harding, although not the immediate supervisor of the adjuster in the February-April 2000 period, was, apparently, as branch *1104 claims manager, two…”
Mitchell v. State, 2016 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Simpson laid to rest the undefined term "fundamental error" and applied the principles of the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S. § 2101 et. seq . In giving a more thorough breakdown of the plain error analysis, the Court in Hogan v.”
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 2102. The Legislature expressly made the rules enunciated in the Code applicable in criminal proceedings.”
Clark v. Mazda Motor Corp., 2003 OK 19 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 2× “[5] 12 O.S.2001 § 2101 et seq. [6] Kirkland v.”
Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 796 P.2d 276 (Okla. 1990). “12 O.S.1981 §§ 2101 et seq. 75 . In Braden v.”
Driskell v. State, 659 P.2d 343 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “But it would be an exercise in futility to remand the case for a new trial solely because of that alleged error, since a new trial would be conducted under the rules of evidence adopted in 12 O.S.1981, §§ 2101 et seq., wherein a party may impeach its own witness.”
Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 925 P.2d 546 (Okla. 1996). “1991, § 2702 of the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.1991, § 2101 et seq., as amended, provides that “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an…”
Smicklas v. Spitz, 846 P.2d 362 (Okla. 1992). “In examining a witness concerning a pri- or statement made by him whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to him at that time but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel just prior to the cross-examination of…”
Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1989). “…the failure of the record to demonstrate how Pier 51 was prejudiced by the exclusion. . 678 P.2d 253 (Okla.1984). . 12 O.S.1981 § 2101 et seq.”
Helm v. State Election Bd., 589 P.2d 224 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 2× “) Finally, Intervenor Cain suggests that with the adoption of Oklahoma's new Evidence Code (Code), 12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 2101, et seq., a voter may voluntarily disclose or testify as to how he cast his vote in an election.”
Gabus v. Harvey, 678 P.2d 253 (Okla. 1984). “SIMMS, Vice Chief Justice: The question presented in this appeal is whether the opinion of an investigating officer, relating the cause of an automobile-pedestrian accident, is admissible under the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.1981, § 2101, et seq. Appellant, Louise Gabus, was…”
Show all 31 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.