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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952 (2026)

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

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

(a) The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify judgments of the district court for errors appearing on the record, and in the reversal of such judgment may reverse, vacate or modify any intermediate order involving the merits of the action, or any portion thereof. (b) The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify any of the following orders of the district court, or a judge thereof: 1. A final order; 2. An order that discharges, vacates or modifies or refuses to vacate or modify a provisional remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party; or grants, refuses, vacates, modifies or refuses to vacate or modify an injunction; grants or refuses a new trial; or vacates or refuses to vacate a final judgment; 3. Any other order, which affects a substantial part of the merits of the controversy when the trial judge certifies that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; provided, however, that the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may refuse to hear the appeal. If the Supreme Court assumes jurisdiction of the appeal, it shall indicate in its order whether the action in the trial court shall be stayed or shall continue. The failure of a party to appeal from an order that is appealable under either subdivision 2 or 3 of subsection (b) of this section shall not preclude him from asserting error in the order after the judgment or final order is rendered. R.L. 1910, § 5236. Amended by Laws 1955, p. 135, § 1; Laws 1968, c. 290, § 1, eff. Jan. 13, 1969.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 184 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: In the Matter of the Guardianship of Berry, 2014 OK 56.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Berry, 2014 OK 56. · cites it 16× “7 See 12 O.S.2011 § 952 (b)(1) at note 8 infra .”
Indep. Sch. Dist. 52 v. Hofmeister, 2020 OK 56, 473 P.3d 475. · cites it 4× “66 12 O.S.2011 § 952 (a): (a) The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify judgments of the district court for errors appearing on the record, and in the reversal of such judgment may reverse, vacate or modify any intermediate order involving the merits of the action, or any…”
Sommer v. Sommer, 1997 OK 123, 947 P.2d 512. · cites it 10× “¶1 The question before the court—certified for our review under the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 952(b)(3) [1] —is whether contempt will lie for the collection of past due and unpaid support alimony that has been commuted to a judgment at law.”
Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 2003 OK 11, 64 P.3d 1113. · cites it 4× “12 O.S.1991, § 952(b)(3); Pierson v. Canupp, 1988 OK 47 , ¶ 11, 754 P.”
Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86, 223 P.3d 966. · cites it 4× “(b) The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify any of the following orders of the district court, or a judge thereof: 1.”
Rogers v. QuikTrip Corp., 2010 OK 3, 230 P.3d 853. · cites it 2× “50 provide: Any interlocutory order not appealable by right under the statutes, which order affects a substantial part of the merits of the controversy, may be brought for review to this Court in compliance with the rules in this Part when the trial judge or the judge’s…”
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 2005 OK 88, 125 P.3d 1219. · cites it 3× “22 Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 952(b)(2), 23 we may reverse, vacate or'modify a judgment of the district court where, on review it appears from the nature of the case and all the facts properly before the Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.”
McLin v. Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 4× “See, 12 O.S.1981, § 952. This court will not review a trial court order which overrules a motion for summary judgment.”
Martin v. Phillips, 422 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2018). · cites it 2× “Phillips asked the district court to certify that decision for immediate review pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 952(b)(3). The district court did so, and Phillips timely petitioned this Court for certiorari.”
Pierson v. Canupp, 754 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 4× “A proceeding to review a certified interlocutory order must comply with the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 952(b)(3) 5 and Rules 1.50-1.”
DLB Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 805 P.2d 657 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 4× “(2) An order that discharges, vacates or modifies or refuses to vacate or modify a provisional remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party; or grants, refuses, vacates, modifies or refuses to vacate or modify an injunction; grants or refuses a new trial; or vacates or…”
Gilbert v. Sec. Fin. Corp. of Oklahoma, 2006 OK 58, 152 P.3d 165. · cites it 2× “[78] 12 O.S.2001, § 952; 20 O.S.2001, §§ 30.1, 3001.”
Show all 184 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(2): 1 case
Knell v. Burnes, 645 P.2d 471 (Okla. 1982).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(3): 3 cases
Tidmore v. Fullman, 646 P.2d 1278 (Okla. 1982).
Rowan v. Rowan, 523 P.2d 1068 (Okla. 1974).
Oklahoma Dept. of Corr. v. Byrd, 2023 OK 97.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(8)(b): 1 case
City of Lawton v. Int'l Union of Police Associations, Local 24, 2002 OK 1, 41 P.3d 371.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(B)(3): 1 case
Savage v. Burton, 2005 OK CIV APP 106, 125 P.3d 1249.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(a): 13 cases
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Berry, 2014 OK 56. “7 See 12 O.S.2011 § 952 (b)(1) at note 8 infra .”
Conterez v. O'DONNELL, 2002 OK 67, 58 P.3d 759.
State v. One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars, 2006 OK 15, 131 P.3d 116.
Berryhill v. Rhodes, 2014 OK 56, 335 P.3d 779.
Williams v. Mulvihill, 846 P.2d 1097 (Okla. 1993).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(b): 22 cases
Mann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 669 P.2d 768 (Okla. 1983).
McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 1998 OK 2, 953 P.2d 329.
LCR, INC. v. Linwood Props., 918 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1996).
Reams v. Tulsa Cable Television, Inc., 604 P.2d 373 (Okla. 1979).
Chemco Prods., Inc. v. Moley Produce Co., Inc., 615 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1980).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(b)(1): 7 cases
Liberty Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, N.A. v. Rogalin, 912 P.2d 836 (Okla. 1996).
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tidwell, 820 P.2d 1338 (Okla. 1991).
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Mehta, 2008 OK CIV APP 25, 180 P.3d 1214.
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
Richardson v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Transp., 818 P.2d 1257 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(b)(2): 26 cases
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 2005 OK 88, 125 P.3d 1219. “22 Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 952(b)(2), 23 we may reverse, vacate or'modify a judgment of the district court where, on review it appears from the nature of the case and all the facts properly before the Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.”
Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86, 223 P.3d 966. “(b) The Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify any of the following orders of the district court, or a judge thereof: 1.”
Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1977).
Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc., 903 P.2d 293 (Okla. 1995).
Morgan v. Oklahoma Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 2009 OK 21, 207 P.3d 362.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(b)(3): 54 cases
Sommer v. Sommer, 1997 OK 123, 947 P.2d 512. “¶1 The question before the court—certified for our review under the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 952(b)(3) [1] —is whether contempt will lie for the collection of past due and unpaid support alimony that has been commuted to a judgment at law.”
Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 2003 OK 11, 64 P.3d 1113. “12 O.S.1991, § 952(b)(3); Pierson v. Canupp, 1988 OK 47 , ¶ 11, 754 P.”
Martin v. Phillips, 422 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2018). “Phillips asked the district court to certify that decision for immediate review pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 952(b)(3). The district court did so, and Phillips timely petitioned this Court for certiorari.”
Pierson v. Canupp, 754 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1988). “A proceeding to review a certified interlocutory order must comply with the terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 952(b)(3) 5 and Rules 1.50-1.”
In Re: Detachment of Mun. Territory From the City of Ada, 2015 OK 18.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 952(b)(8): 1 case
Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2009 OK 36, 212 P.3d 484.
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.