Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 929 (2026)
Costs to successful defendant as matter of course
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Costs shall be allowed of course to any defendant, upon a judgment in his favor in the actions mentioned in the last section. R.L. 1910, § 5230.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: LPCX CORP. v. Faulkner, 818 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1991).
LPCX CORP. v. Faulkner, 818 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1991). “In this regard it is contended that Red Eagle is entitled to costs as a prevailing party under 12 O.S. § 929, and if not under that statute then Red Eagle's alternative position is that it is entitled to its costs under 12 O.”
Oxley v. City of Tulsa Ex Rel. Tulsa Airport Auth., 794 P.2d 742 (Okla. 1990). “City maintains that this denial was in derogation of its right to recover costs as the prevailing party pursuant to 12 O.S.1981, § 929 which states that “[cjosts shall be allowed of course to any defendant, upon a judgment in his favor in the actions mentioned in [12 O.”
Hough v. Leonard, 867 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1993). “12 O.S.1991 § 929; 12 O.S.1991 § 928; 12 O.”
Medlock v. Admiral Safe Co., Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 72, 122 P.3d 883. “[7] This holding does not apply to any costs that are awardable to the prevailing Defendants pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 929. [1] While opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals do not carry precedential weight unless approved for publication by the Supreme Court, they may be…”
Singleton v. LePak, 425 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1967). “1961, § 928 provides “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, * * and Title 12 O.S.1961, § 929 provides “Costs shall be allowed of…”
Haddock v. Woodland Park Home, Inc., 2004 OK CIV APP 42, 90 P.3d 594. “Woodland Park asserted that it was the prevailing party as to Randall Haddock and was therefore entitled to an award of costs pursuant to 12 O.S. § 929. Woodland Park asked for an award of $6,697.”
Smith v. Jenkins, 873 P.2d 1044 (Okla. 1994). “The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 929 are: "Costs shall be allowed of course to any defendant, upon a judgment in his favor in the actions mentioned in the last section.”
Shadid v. Monsour, 746 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “Pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 929 costs shall be allowed to a prevailing defendant in an action for the recovery of money.”
Foreman v. Brewer, 2006 OK CIV APP 149, 149 P.3d 1083. “Defendants then filed a motion for costs pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 929, requesting $1,939.40 in costs from the beginning of the action.”
Van Cleave v. Kolpak Builders Co., 693 P.2d 17 (Okla. Civ. App. 1985). “A few days later defendant Kolpak also moved for costs and attorney fees under 12 O.S.1981 §§ 929 and 936 claiming it was the prevailing party because its § 1101 offer to allow judgment exceeded plaintiffs recovery.”
Brown v. Bivings, 316 P.2d 855 (Okla. 1957). “The order fixes the amount of the receiver’s fee, and that of his attorney, and states that it is assessed against the receivership fund, but it does not as stated in the brief, tax the cost against the defendant Brown.”
Geyer Bros. Equip. Co. v. Stand. Resources, L.L.C., 2006 OK CIV APP 924, 140 P.3d 563. “Although the trial court did not specify the statutory authority under which it awarded attorney fees, Defendants cited 12 O.S.2001 §§ 929, 930, 936 & 1141.5(B) as support for their attorney fees motion.”
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.