A. Unless unavoidably prevented, an application for a new trial by motion, if made, must be filed not later than ten (10) days after the judgment, decree or appealable order prepared in conformance with Section 696.3 of this title has been filed. More than ten (10) days after the judgment, decree, or appealable order which conforms with Section 696.3 of this title has been filed, an application for a new trial by petition may be filed in conformance with the provisions of Section 655 of this title. B. If the moving party did not prepare the judgment, decree, or appealable order, and Section 696.2 of this title required a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to be mailed to the moving party, and the court records do not reflect the mailing of a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order to the moving party within three (3) days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, after the filing of the judgment, decree, or appealable order, the motion for new trial may be filed no later than ten (10) days after the earliest date on which the court records show that a copy of the judgment, decree, or appealable order was mailed to the moving party.
C. A motion for new trial filed after the announcement of the decision on all issues in the case but before the filing of the judgment or decree shall be deemed filed immediately after the filing of the judgment or decree. R.L. 1910, § 5035. Amended by Laws 1953, p. 54, § 1; Laws 1990, c. 251, § 10, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Laws 1991, c. 251, § 5, eff. June 1, 1991; Laws 1993, c. 351, § 8, eff. Oct. 1, 1993; Laws 1994, c. 343, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Laws 1997, c. 102, § 1, eff. May 1, 1997; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1946–2025 · leading case:
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 6× “12 O.S.Supp. 1993 §§ 653, 990.2(B); Brown v.”
Bushert v. Hughes, 912 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Hughes commenced his appeal April 11, in less than 30 days after he got the order but more than 30 days after it had been filed.”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 581 P.2d 31 (Okla. 1978).
· cites it 5× “1971 § 1031 to be considered within the time and within the manner prescribed in 12 O.S.1971 § 653. O.S.1971 § 653 provides that: “ Unless unavoidably prevented, the application for a new trial, if made, must be filed within ten (10) days after the verdict, report or decision is…”
Knell v. Burnes, 645 P.2d 471 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Title 12 O.S.1971 § 653 provides: “Unless unavoidably prevented, the application for a new trial, if made, must be filed within ten (10) days after the verdict, report or decision is rendered regardless of whether or not the term has ended, except for the cause of newly…”
Heirshberg v. Slater, 833 P.2d 269 (Okla. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 653 provided: "Unless unavoidably prevented, the application for a new trial, if made, must be filed within ten (10) days after the verdict, report or decision is rendered regardless of whether or not the term has ended, except for the cause of…”
Schepp v. Hess, 770 P.2d 34 (Okla. 1989).
“] The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 653 are: "Unless unavoidably prevented, the application for a new trial, if made, must be filed within ten (10) days after the verdict, report or decision is rendered regardless of whether or not the term has ended, except for the cause of…”
Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1994).
“The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 653 are: "... [T]he application for a new trial, if made, must be filed within ten (10) days after the verdict .”
Brown v. Green Country Softball Ass'n, 884 P.2d 851 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Then on January 4, 1994 the motion for rehearing was denied. Plaintiffs' petition in error was filed February 1, 1994.”
Dunbar Eng'g Corp. v. Rhinosystems, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 49 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).
“12 O.S.2001 § 653(C). We review a trial court’s order denying a motion for new trial pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 653(A): 2 cases
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 653(C): 6 cases
Bushert v. Hughes, 912 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1996).
“Hughes commenced his appeal April 11, in less than 30 days after he got the order but more than 30 days after it had been filed.”
Dunbar Eng'g Corp. v. Rhinosystems, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 49 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).
“12 O.S.2001 § 653(C). We review a trial court’s order denying a motion for new trial pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 653(c): 1 case
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.