A. Post-Trial Motions Filed Within Ten (10) Days. When a post- trial motion for a new trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to correct, open, modify, vacate or reconsider a judgment, decree or final order, other than a motion only involving costs or attorney fees, is filed within ten (10) days after the judgment, decree or final order is filed with the court clerk, an appeal shall not be commenced until an order disposing of the motion is filed with the court clerk. The unsuccessful party may then appeal from the order disposing of the motion within thirty (30) days after the date such order was filed. If the decision on the motion was against the moving party, the moving party may appeal from the judgment, decree or final order, from the ruling on the motion, or from both, in one appeal, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the order disposing of the motion. Successive appeals from the original judgment, decree or final order and the order disposing of the motion shall not be allowed. B. Post-Trial Motions Filed After Ten (10) Days. The time to appeal from a judgment, decree or final order is not extended or affected by the filing of a motion to correct, open, modify, vacate
or reconsider the judgment, decree or final order that is filed more than ten (10) days after the judgment, decree or final order is filed with the clerk of the trial court, and an appeal that is commenced before such a motion is filed is not premature. If the motion is filed after a petition in error is filed, the moving party shall advise the Supreme Court the motion was filed. If a petition in error is filed after such a motion is filed, the appellant shall advise the Supreme Court in the petition in error that the motion is pending. When the trial court disposes of the motion where a petition in error has been filed, the successful party shall advise the Supreme Court of the action taken on the motion. C. If the appellant did not prepare the judgment, decree, or final order, and Section 696.2 of this title required a copy of the judgment, decree, or final order to be mailed to the appellant, and the court records do not reflect the mailing of a copy of the judgment, decree, or final order to the appellant within three (3) days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, after the filing of the judgment, decree, or final order, all times referred to in this section shall run from the earliest date on which the court records show that a file-stamped copy of the judgment, decree, or final order was mailed to the appealing party, rather than from the date of filing. D. Costs and Attorney Fees. The filing of a motion for costs or attorney fees shall not extend or affect the time to appeal. Added by Laws 1993, c. 351, § 19, eff. Oct. 1, 1993. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 102, § 6, eff. May 1, 1997; Laws 2004, c. 181, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case:
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 6× “[5] The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2 provide: "A. Post-Trial Motions Filed Within Ten (10) Days.”
Bushert v. Hughes, 912 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 6× “12 O.S.Supp.1994 § 990.2(A). The order disposing of the post-trial motion must be in the form required by 12 O.”
In the Matter of K.S., 393 P.3d 715 (Okla. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The time to appeal from a motion to reconsider is not extended by any later motion for reconsideration.”
Berkson v. State Ex Rel. Askins as Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 2023 OK 70 (Okla. 2023).
· cites it 3× “12 O.S.2021 §990.2 When a post-trial motion for a new trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to correct, open, modify, vacate or reconsider a judgment, decree or final order, other than a motion only involving costs or attorney fees, is filed within ten (10) days…”
Conoco Inc. v. Agrico Chem. Co., 2004 OK 83 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Conoco timely filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in accordance with 12 O.S.2001, § 990.2. The district court overruled the new trial motion.”
Hsbc v. Tuggle, 2019 OK CIV APP 37 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Title 12 O.S. § 990.2 provides: [W]hen a post-trial motion .”
Corbit v. Williams, 897 P.2d 1129 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 3× “) [7] The terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2 provide in pertinent part: "A.”
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Auth. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2005 OK 2 (Okla. 2005).
“When a post-trial motion for a new trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to correct, open modify, vacate or reconsider a judgment, decree or final order, other than a motion involving costs, attorney's fees or interest is filed within ten (10) days after the…”
In the Matter of K.S., 2017 OK 16 (Okla. 2017).
· cites it 4× “12 O.S.2011, § 990.2(A); 12 O.S.Supp. 2013, app.”
Keel v. Wright, 890 P.2d 1351 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 2× “12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2(D). This statute was not in effect at the time of the judgment here and does not govern this case.”
Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Assocs., Inc., 904 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1995).
“This court's April 27, 1994 order directed Gilliland (a) to respond to Clinic's quest to recast the appeal and (if the appeal is indeed from an interlocutory order) (b) to show cause why it should not be dismissed as untimely because a new trial motion does not extend the time…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 990.2(A) — 13 cases
In the Matter of K.S., 393 P.3d 715 (Okla. 2017).
“The time to appeal from a motion to reconsider is not extended by any later motion for reconsideration.”
McMillian v. Holcomb, 907 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1995).
“[5] The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2 provide: "A. Post-Trial Motions Filed Within Ten (10) Days.”
Bushert v. Hughes, 912 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1996).
“12 O.S.Supp.1994 § 990.2(A). The order disposing of the post-trial motion must be in the form required by 12 O.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 990.2(B) — 8 cases
In the Matter of K.S., 393 P.3d 715 (Okla. 2017).
“The time to appeal from a motion to reconsider is not extended by any later motion for reconsideration.”
Corbit v. Williams, 897 P.2d 1129 (Okla. 1995).
“) [7] The terms of 12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2 provide in pertinent part: "A.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 990.2(C) — 4 cases
Bushert v. Hughes, 912 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1996).
“12 O.S.Supp.1994 § 990.2(A). The order disposing of the post-trial motion must be in the form required by 12 O.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 990.2(D) — 2 cases
Keel v. Wright, 890 P.2d 1351 (Okla. 1995).
“12 O.S.Supp. 1993 § 990.2(D). This statute was not in effect at the time of the judgment here and does not govern this case.”
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.