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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2203 (2026)

Determining propriety of taking judicial notice

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: 1. The court may consult and use any source of pertinent information, whether or not furnished by a party; and 2. No exclusionary rule except a valid claim of privilege shall apply. B. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the scope of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken. C. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 203, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Petition of Univ. Hospitals Auth., 953 P.2d 314 (Okla. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Petition of Univ. Hospitals Auth., 953 P.2d 314 (Okla. 1998). · cites it 6× “[9] Pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 2203, [10] the command to take judicial notice extends to the appellate process.”
Callison v. Callison, 687 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1984). · cites it 5× “It is provided by 12 O.S.1981 § 2203: “A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: “1.”
Harvell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2006 OK 24, 164 P.3d 1028. · cites it 2× “[31] That section "requires that judicial notice be taken of the common law, constitutions, and public statutes in force in every state, territory, and jurisdiction of the United States.”
Sooner Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Mobley, 645 P.2d 1000 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 2× “[2] See 12 O.S.Supp. 1980, § 2203 B; 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, §§ 58, 59; 5 Am.”
Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 796 P.2d 276 (Okla. 1990). “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 2203(A)(1) are: "A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: 1.”
Nichols v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2017 OK 20, 392 P.3d 692. “” Title 12 O.S.2011, § 2203 C provides: "Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen, 837 P.2d 894 (Okla. 1992). “Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2203 provides in pertinent part: ".”
Browning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 812 P.2d 1372 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “” 12 O.S.1981 § 2203(B). Here, because the trial court did not require evidence of the disputed rules and regulations, it had no basis for determining exactly what it was judicially noticing.”
Mustang Run Wind Proj., LLC v. Osage Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2016 OK 113. “2d 276, 294 ; 12 O.S.2011 § 2203 ("The court may consult and use any source of pertinent information, whether or not furnished by a party").”
Nichols v. State Ex. Rel. Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2017 OK 20. · cites it 4× “" Title 12 O.S.2011, § 2203 C provides: "Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.”
Woods Dev. Co. v. Meurer Abstract & Title Co., 712 P.2d 30 (Okla. 1985). “Appellant did not properly question the *35 propriety of the trial court taking judicial notice as provided under 12 O.S.1981 § 2203. Appellees second basis supporting its unconstitutionality argument is that the application of the statutory fee schedule today is vague.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2203(A)(1): 2 cases
Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 796 P.2d 276 (Okla. 1990). “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 2203(A)(1) are: "A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: 1.”
Callison v. Callison, 687 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1984). “It is provided by 12 O.S.1981 § 2203: “A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: “1.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2203(B): 2 cases
Callison v. Callison, 687 P.2d 106 (Okla. 1984). “It is provided by 12 O.S.1981 § 2203: “A. In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter: “1.”
Browning v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 812 P.2d 1372 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “” 12 O.S.1981 § 2203(B). Here, because the trial court did not require evidence of the disputed rules and regulations, it had no basis for determining exactly what it was judicially noticing.”
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.