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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 588 (2026)

General and special findings

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

In all cases the jury shall render a general verdict, and the court may in any case at the request of the parties thereto, or either of them, in addition to the general verdict, direct the jury to find upon particular questions of fact, to be stated in writing by the party or parties requesting the same. R.L. 1910, § 5013.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1976–2013 · leading case: Medlock v. Admiral Safe Co., Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Medlock v. Admiral Safe Co., Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 588, [6] *889 the jury rendered a general verdict.”
McKellips v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 741 P.2d 467 (Okla. 1987). “7, § 15; 12 O.S.1981 § 588; Smith v. Gizzi, 564 P.”
Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 713 P.2d 589 (Okla. 1985). “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 588 reiterate this constitutional requirement: “In all cases the jury shall render a general verdict, and the court may in any case at the request of the parties thereto, or either of them, in addition to the general verdict, direct the jury to find…”
Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 2001 OK 76 (Okla. 2001). “Such would have been available to Andersen under the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 588. Instead Andersen's entire audit engagement extending from 1988 to 1992 was the subject of plaintiffs' action.”
Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co., 786 P.2d 1230 (Okla. 1989). “No special findings of fact exist to controvert the general verdict against Bryant, and we therefore affirm the verdict against that defendant individually.”
Smith v. Gizzi, 564 P.2d 1009 (Okla. 1977). “It must present the facts as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them; and they must be so presented as that nothing remains to the court but to draw from them conclusions of law.”
Eversole v. Oklahoma Hosp. Founders Ass'n, 818 P.2d 456 (Okla. 1991). “12 O.S.1981, § 588. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury in the exercise of its function as a fact finding body, Dodson v.”
Vaught v. Holland, 554 P.2d 1174 (Okla. 1976). “7, § 15 and 12 O.S.1971, § 588. Holland’s second argument of error relates to allowing plaintiff to amend so as to copform with the proof as to the amount and necessity for future medical expense.”
In the Matter of A.F.K., 2014 OK CIV APP 6 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “By including a line for a checkmark beside each of the alleged conditions, the court directed the jury to make findings as to particular questions of fact, a procedure approved by 12 O.S. 2011 §588. So long as the verdict is wholly determinative of the issue tried, special…”
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.