A. An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without an order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before pretrial. After the pretrial hearing, an action may only be dismissed by agreement of the parties or by the court. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice. B. Except as provided in subsection A of this section, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's request except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon the defendant of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaims can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this subsection is without prejudice. C. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the provisions of this section or any order of court, a defendant
may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. D. The provisions of this section apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be made before a responsive pleading is served or, if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order. R.L.1910, § 5126. Amended by Laws 2004, c. 368, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2004; Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 13, § 5; Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 13, § 6. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 6 was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013) and repealed by Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 13, § 4.
Notes of Decisions
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Coffey, 2020 OK 90 (Okla. 2020).
· cites it 6× “4 While the opinion does not explicitly address why an expanded or alternative definition was applied, from the outset, this Court recognized the interplay of 12 O.S. § 684 and 12 O.S. § 936 present in Professional Credit .”
Prof'l Credit Collections, Inc. v. Smith, 933 P.2d 307 (Okla. 1997).
· cites it 4× “In reaching this conclusion they overlooked the interplay of the text in 12 O.S.1991 § 684, which governs voluntary dismissals, [3] with the provisions of 12 O.”
Clark v. Clark, 2002 OK CIV APP 96 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Title 12 O.S.1991 § 684 states in relevant part: A plaintiff may, on the payment of costs and without an order of court, dismiss any civil action brought by him at any time before a petition of intervention or answer praying for affirmative relief against him is filed in the…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Carpenter, 576 P.2d 1166 (Okla. 1978).
· cites it 3× “BERRY, Justice: This matter involves the right to dismiss, under 12 O.S.1971 § 684, by plaintiff in an action where costs are, in part, governed by 12 O.”
Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100 (Okla. 2008).
· cites it 2× “On January 5, 2005, however, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against the defendants without prejudice, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 684. Plaintiff's counsel indicated an intention to refile some of the claims within three months.”
Moses v. Hoebel, 646 P.2d 601 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 2× “We held that the dismissal, which had been effected in “bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reason”, was unshielded by the statutory authority placed in the plaintiff by the terms of 12 O.S.1971 § 684 8 to dismiss a case before submission.”
Waits v. Viersen Oil & Gas Co., 2020 OK CIV APP 2 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2d 307 , the last Supreme Court decision to fully analyze this question, the Court provides an analysis based on the 1991 version of 12 O.S. § 684, which at the time of Professional Credit , had remained unchanged since 1910, and stated: A plaintiff may, on the payment of costs…”
Watson v. Gibson Capital, L.L.C., 2008 OK 56 (Okla. 2008).
· cites it 2× “13 IV THE COMMON LAW IS NOT REPEALED BY SILENCE 112 Gibson's view that a represented client is authorized by the terms of 12 O.S.Supp.2004 § 684 14 to sign and file a dismissal of his own lawsuit is incorrect.”
McCully v. Wil-Mc Oil Corp., 879 P.2d 150 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “1 Defendants concurrently also filed an application for costs requesting deposition costs, citing both 12 O.S.1991 § 684 and 12 O.S.1991 § 942. Both applications were filed after plaintiffs’ dismissal.”
Brandt v. Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc., 998 P.2d 587 (Okla. 1999).
“Final submission of the case marks the end of plaintiffs dismissal by right under either § 683 or 12 O.S.1991 § 684. ¶ 13 The Court found there was no final submission of the case after the first bench trial, because the trial court had called for additional briefs and the…”
Ross v. Kelsey Hayes, Inc., 825 P.2d 1273 (Okla. 1991).
“Title 12 O.S.1981 § 684 provides in pertinent part: “A plaintiff may, on the payment of costs and without an order of court, dismiss any civil action brought by him at any time before a petition of intervention or answer praying for affirmative relief against him is filed in the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 684(A) — 4 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 684(D) — 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.