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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 951 (2026)

Appellate jurisdiction of the district court

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A judgment rendered, or final order made, by any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, and inferior in jurisdiction to the district court, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the district court except where an appeal to some other court is provided by law. (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, proceedings for review of a judgment or final order shall be commenced by filing a petition in the district court of the county where the inferior tribunal, board or officer rendered the order within thirty (30) days of the date that a copy of the judgment or final order is mailed to the appellant, as shown by the certificate of mailing attached to the judgment or final order.

R.L. 1910, § 5235. Amended by Laws 1998, c. 374, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Clay v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa Cnty., 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clay v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa Cnty., 1997 OK 13, 935 P.2d 294. · cites it 6× “) nor 12 O.S.1991 § 951 provide a mechanism for District Court appellate review of the Excise Board in this case.”
O'ROURKE v. City of Tulsa, 457 P.2d 782 (Okla. 1969). · cites it 5× “The City of Tulsa filed an answer to the petition of the plaintiffs, but the intervenors, who are neighboring landowners, filed a demurrer, attacking the petition on two points: (1) that plaintiffs have an adequate remedy by law by appealing from the order of the City Commission…”
Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 827 P.2d 1314 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “16 Inasmuch as the administrative process issued by the Commission may not be treated as a final order, the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 951 17 are also ineffective to vest the district court with adjudicative cognizance over the Commission’s pre-dispute process.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, 100 P.3d 707. “Even if not strictly subject to appeal under the OAPA, a final administrative determination regarding relocation benefits may be appealable to a district court under the terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 951 if the administrative decision were deemed to be quasi-judicial in nature and if…”
Bd. of Law Library Trs. v. State ex rel. Petuske, 825 P.2d 1285 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “THE DIRECTIVE AS AN ADJUDICATION If the chief justice’s directive were rather to be treated as an adjudicative decision, then the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 951 24 would bar the district court’s reviewing cognizance.”
Burdick v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 52, 702 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1985). “1981 § 951 which provide: "A judgment rendered, or final order made, by any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions, and inferior in jurisdiction to the district court, may be reversed, vacated, or modified by the district court except where an appeal to some…”
Kirschstein v. Haynes, 788 P.2d 941 (Okla. 1990). “We should further note that even in those situations where a formal individual proceeding was not held final action of the Commissioner or the Board of Health adverse to an applicant seeking a delayed birth certificate, being quasi-judicial in nature, would constitute a final…”
City of Muskogee v. Grayson, 818 P.2d 491 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “Based upon precedent, this Court held that the commission exercised a judicial function in hearing the officer’s appeal from dismissal and that the trial court properly heard the appeal under the authority of 12 O.S.1981, § 951. 1 Further finding that the transcript revealed…”
Tuttle v. Pilant, 890 P.2d 874 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 3× “We hold that the district court was acting as an appellate court under 12 O.S.1981 § 951 and the court could not allow and consider new evidence regarding damages.”
City of Tulsa v. Bd. of Trs. of Police Pension, 387 P.2d 255 (Okla. 1963). “12 O.S.1961 § 951. Appellee counters by asserting that section 541v, being a special statute, enacted to apply to appeals in police pension matters only, should govern over the general statute, quoting from State ex rel.”
City of Sand Springs v. Colliver, 434 P.2d 186 (Okla. 1967). “Plaintiff perfected appeal to the district court, authorized by 12 O.S.1961, § 951, by filing petition in error with complete record attached in conformity with requirements of the statute.”
Bulard Air Servs. v. Brown Aviation, 2019 OK CIV APP 39, 446 P.3d 1263. “" 2 In their response to the petition in error, appellees asserted that other trial issues are still pending and the writ of replevin is not a final appealable order pursuant to 12 O.S. §951, §952, §953, and §994. We ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 951(a): 2 cases
Stripling v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 2017 OK CIV APP 6.
Holtzen v. Tulsa Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2004 OK CIV APP 74, 97 P.3d 1150.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 951(b): 3 cases
Yerton v. City of Tulsa, 2023 OK CIV APP 18.
Stripling v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 2017 OK CIV APP 6.
Bluejacket v. City of Tulsa, 2005 OK CIV APP 26, 111 P.3d 732.
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.