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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 928 (2026)

Costs to successful plaintiff as matter of course

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

Where it is not otherwise provided by this and other statutes, costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor, in actions for the recovery of money only, or for the recovery of specific, real or personal property. R.L. 1910, § 5229.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1962–2023 · leading case: LPCX CORP. v. Faulkner, 818 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LPCX CORP. v. Faulkner, 818 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 4× “Under these facts, the Court cannot but conclude that plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action and were properly awarded their costs under 12 O.S. § 928 providing as it *442 does that "[c]osts shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor,…”
Brashier v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 925 P.2d 20 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 3× “The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 928 are: Where it is not otherwise provided by this and other statutes, costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor, in actions for the recovery of money only, or for the recovery of specific, real or personal…”
Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 911 P.2d 1205 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “COSTS Appellee Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, a defendant (Kaiser-Francis) argues that an award of costs pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 § 928 and 942 is mandatory. It seeks its costs incurred in the trial court and on appeal.”
Tomahawk Resources, Inc. v. Craven, 2005 OK 82, 130 P.3d 222. · cites it 2× “351, § 29); see 12 O.S.2001, § 928. ¶ 7 The now repealed title 12, section 696.”
Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc., 2003 OK 72, 77 P.3d 1042. “, finding for the plaintiffs but fixing the amount of plaintiffs' recovery at zero damages—plaintiffs were not entitled to recover their costs under 12 O.S.1971, § 928 as they could not be deemed the successful parties on the claim as they necessarily failed to establish…”
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 720 P.2d 721 (Okla. 1986). “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 928 provide: "Where it is not otherwise provided by this and other statutes, costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor, in actions for the recovery of money only, or for the recovery of specific, real or personal…”
Hough v. Leonard, 867 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1993). “1991 § 929; 12 O.S.1991 § 928; 12 O.S.1991 § 936. Other issues to be determined are not reviewable in this Court.”
Boyd Rosene & Assocs., Inc. v. Kansas Mun. Gas Agency, an Interlocal Mun. Agency City of Winfield, Kansas, a Mun., 174 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir. 1999). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 928 (“Where it is not otherwise provided by this and other statutes, costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff, upon a judgment in his favor, in actions for the recovery of money only, or for the recovery of specific, real or personal property.”
Wilson v. Glancy, 913 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “In the alternative Appellant relies upon 12 O.S.1991 § 928 for attorney's fees. This statute allows recovery of costs of course to the plaintiff in successful actions for the recovery of money or recovery of specific real or personal property.”
Smith v. Jenkins, 873 P.2d 1044 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “The counsel-fee approach we announce today is entirely consistent with that in our general cost statutes, 12 O.S.1991 §§ 928, 24 929 25 and 930. 26 By the terms of §§ 928 and 929 a successful plaintiff or defendant is entitled to costs from the vanquished adversary in actions…”
Sloan v. Owen, 579 P.2d 812 (Okla. 1977). “In the briefs on appeal, homeowners take the position that because the jury found *814 “for the plaintiffs”, they were the “successful party” on their petition, even though they recovered no money judgment, and that they are therefore entitled to recover their costs as a matter…”
Dulan v. Johnston, 687 P.2d 1045 (Okla. 1984). “Defendant’s conclusion is not per *1047 suasive, however, for 12 O.S.1981, § 928, “the general statute, controls in a case such as this one where plaintiff elects to take judgment against defendant under an offer to confess judgment.”
Show all 33 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.