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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 953 (2026)

Final order defined

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

An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, is a final order, which may be vacated, modified or reversed, as provided in this article. R.L. 1910, § 5237.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Christ's Legacy Church v. Trinity Grp. Architects, 2018 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christ's Legacy Church v. Trinity Grp. Architects, 2018 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “The order submitted with the Petition in Error does not meet the definition of a final order under 12 O.S. § 953 as it failed to dispose of all claims and does not contain language making it a final appealable order as required by 12 O.”
Depuy v. Hoeme, 775 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 3× “12 O.S.1981 § 953 defines final postjudgment orders that are appealable in the following terms; “An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right, made in a…”
Conterez v. O'DONNELL, 2002 OK 67 (Okla. 2002). · cites it 3× “¶ 8 The April 25 denial fails to meet the two-prong finality test 9 for appealability of prejudgment orders under the provisions of 12 O.S.2001 § 953. 10 The order refusing to sanction the witness’ lawyer neither conclusively settles the nonsanctionability of the lawyer’s…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tidwell, 820 P.2d 1338 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “England, supra, the deficiency order is "an order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding or upon summary application in an action after judgment" and thus, a final order under 12 O.S.1981 § 953 and appeal-able under 12 O.”
Nat'l Diversified Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Corp. Fin. Opportunities, Inc., 946 P.2d 662 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 2× “25 An order is, final within the meaning of 12 O.S.1991 § 953 26 if it prevents judgment upon the process in progress, even though the aggrieved party would have been free to abandon the course then in pursuit to relaunch or press the same claim along a different remedial track.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State, Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 2002 OK 42 (Okla. 2002). · cites it 4× “The forfeiture order does not create *1014 any liability on the surety's part, the Tax Commission must seek a judgment in the district court in order to effectuate the surety's liability, and the forfeiture order does not conclude the litigation between the Tax Commission and…”
Ne. Oklahoma Elec. Coop., Inc. v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm'n, 808 P.2d 680 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “The "point of delivery of electrical service” is defined by Rule 8(A), General Rules and Regulations Governing the Operation of Electric Utilities, as "the point at which the electrical supply system of the utility connects to the wiring system of the consumer.”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Berry, 2014 OK 56 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 2× “" 12 O.S.2011 § 953. 8 12 O.S.2011 § 952: (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…”
Hammonds v. Osteopathic Hosp. Founders Ass'n, 917 P.2d 6 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “The order is hence appealable as final under the terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 953. 5 Were Sellers not counsel but a party to the action, as James L.”
Carter v. Carter, 783 P.2d 969 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “2 We need not pass *970 on her dismissal motion and decide whether the midhearing decision constitutes a final order within the meaning of 12 O.S.1981 § 953. 3 This court will treat a case brought before it in accordance with its intrinsic characteristics; it will not be…”
Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86 (Okla. 2009). “Title 12 O.S.2001 § 953 provides: An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action…”
Moses v. Hoebel, 646 P.2d 601 (Okla. 1982). “12 O.S.1971 § 953. 1 Moses did not appeal from the adverse decision.”
Show all 77 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.