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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 3224 (2026)

Short title and scope of Code

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

Sections 3224 through 3237 of this title shall be known and may be cited as the Oklahoma Discovery Code. The Oklahoma Discovery Code shall govern the procedure for discovery in all suits of a civil nature in all courts in this state. Added by Laws 1982, c. 198, § 1. Amended by Laws 1989, c. 129, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1989. Renumbered from § 3201 of this title by Laws 1989, c. 129, § 14, eff. Nov. 1, 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case: Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 2004 OK 16 (Okla. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chandler (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Tyree, 2004 OK 16 (Okla. 2004). · cites it 2× “" 12 O.S.2001 § 3224. [12] Further, use of discovery procedures in mandamus proceedings is not novel.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Lloyd, 787 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 2× “[renumbered as 12 O.S.Supp. 1989 §§ 3224 et seq. by Okl.”
Ashby v. Harris, 918 P.2d 744 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “1982, §§ 3201 to 3215, and presently codified at 12 O.S.1991, §§ 3224 to 3237.”
State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021). “92 12 O.S.2011 § 3224 states in part that: "Sections 3224 through 3237 of this title shall be known and may be cited as the Oklahoma Discovery Code.”
Tuller v. Shallcross, 886 P.2d 481 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 4× “1976), and decide whether automobile liability insurance policy information is discoverable under the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S.1991 §§ 3224, et seq. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Carman v.”
Sunderland v. Zimmerman, 2019 OK CIV APP 27 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019). “" 12 O.S. 2011 § 3224. This Court has previously established that the remedy of a protective order afforded by the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act is civil in nature.”
Hicks v. Cent. Oklahoma United Methodist Ret. Facility, 2017 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016). “Hicks represented to the trial court that, despite at least one formal discovery conference, several email and phone conversations between the parties, and the parties' agreement about what would be produced, Epworth Villa had not produced the requested documents.”
Craft v. Chopra, 907 P.2d 1109 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “Thus, and while we may not reach the merits of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to compel, we must nevertheless examine the basis and authority for Craft’s request for production of documents from the non-party SGH in order to reach the merits of the issue before us, i.”
Nitzel v. Jackson, 879 P.2d 1222 (Okla. 1994). “There is no statutory discovery method contained in the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S.1991 § 3224 et seq., which requires a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to execute a general medical authorization entitling the defendant to obtain all of the plaintiffs’ medical…”
Bland v. State, 991 P.2d 1039 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “The Oklahoma Discovery Code, 12 O.S.1991, § 3224 et seq., is not applicable in post-conviction proceedings.”
Waddle v. Waddle, 868 P.2d 751 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “12 O.S.1991 §§ 3224 et seq. . In In re Conservancy District No.”
Online Oil, Inc. v. Co&g Prod. Grp., LLC, 2018 OK CIV APP 1 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “¶16 Citing section 3234 of the Oklahoma Discovery Code (12 O.S.2011 §§ 3224 to 3237), the Agrawal defendants point out that any party is authorized to serve a request for the production of documents on any other party.”
Show all 13 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.