Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 418.2 (2026)
Repealed by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 1102, eff. Oct. 1,
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1978–1980 · leading case: Oklahoma Ass'n of Mun. Attorneys v. State, 577 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 1978).
Oklahoma Ass'n of Mun. Attorneys v. State, 577 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 1978). “If a public entity is prohibited from conferring privately with its attorney, such prohibition must be by virtue of the “Open Meeting Act” because the “Privilege Against Disclosure Act” (12 O.S.Supp.1977, § 418.2) is clear and unambiguous in that it continues the attorney-client…”
Berry v. Bd. of Governors of the Registered Dentists, 611 P.2d 628 (Okla. 1980). “The Court reconciled the apparent conflict between the Act and the Privilege Against Disclosure Act, 12 O.S.Supp. 1977 § 418.2 by holding: "..”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 418.2(A): 1 case
Oklahoma Ass'n of Mun. Attorneys v. State, 577 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 1978). “If a public entity is prohibited from conferring privately with its attorney, such prohibition must be by virtue of the “Open Meeting Act” because the “Privilege Against Disclosure Act” (12 O.S.Supp.1977, § 418.2) is clear and unambiguous in that it continues the attorney-client…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 418.2(B): 1 case
Oklahoma Ass'n of Mun. Attorneys v. State, 577 P.2d 1310 (Okla. 1978). “If a public entity is prohibited from conferring privately with its attorney, such prohibition must be by virtue of the “Open Meeting Act” because the “Privilege Against Disclosure Act” (12 O.S.Supp.1977, § 418.2) is clear and unambiguous in that it continues the attorney-client…”
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.