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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 991 (2026)

Right to perfect appeal to Supreme Court without filing

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

motion for new trial - Exemption. (a) The right of a party to perfect an appeal from a judgment, order or decree of the trial court to the Supreme Court shall not be conditioned upon his having filed in the trial court a motion for a new trial, but in the event a motion for a new trial is filed in the trial court by a party adversely affected by the judgment, order or decree, no appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken until subsequent to the ruling by the trial court on the motion for a new trial. This provision shall not apply, however, to an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission. (b) If a motion for a new trial be filed and a new trial be denied, the movant may not, on the appeal, raise allegations of error that were available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein asserted. Added by Laws 1968, c. 395, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Indep. Sch. Dist. 52 v. Hofmeister, 2020 OK 56 (Okla. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Indep. Sch. Dist. 52 v. Hofmeister, 2020 OK 56 (Okla. 2020). · cites it 8× “2d 757 and 12 O.S. § 991. 11 Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes , 2017 OK 42, ¶ 19, 396 P.”
Beyrer v. The Mule, 2021 OK 45 (Okla. 2021). · cites it 3× “3d 210, 218 (pursuant to 12 O.S. § 991 if a party files a motion for new trial, then the assignments of error in a subsequent appeal are limited to those raised in the motion before the trial court); City of Broken Arrow v.”
Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 681 P.2d 757 (Okla. 1984). · cites it 3× “The critical ground on which the plaintiff rested its motion to vacate was: “The journal entry of judgment prepared by the counsel for the Defendant is contrary to the prevailing Oklahoma law as reflected in applicable cases and statutes.”
Wetsel v. Indep. Sch. Dist. I-1, 670 P.2d 986 (Okla. 1983). · cites it 3× “20 Secondly, the student clearly failed to comply with the mandatory terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(b). 21 This statute requires that errors available but not included in new trial motion be excluded from appellate consideration.”
Turpen v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 769 P.2d 1309 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 3× “See infra note 24 for text of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(a). . Transok Pipe Line Company v.”
Reeves v. Agee, 769 P.2d 745 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(b) provide: "If a motion for a new trial be filed and a new trial be denied, the movant may not, on the appeal, raise allegations of error that were available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein…”
Sparlin v. Jackson, 918 P.2d 740 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 8× “[4] See the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 991(a). [5] The March 29 order was appealable within 30 days of its entry.”
City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., 2011 OK 1 (Okla. 2011). “3d 812, 813 ; 12 O.S.2001 § 991(b); 6 Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.”
Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co., 786 P.2d 1230 (Okla. 1989). “12 O.S.1981 § 991. Defendants contend that the court’s instructions were vague and nebulous.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 674 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1983). “12 O.S.1981 § 991(b). Here the husband sought a new trial but withdrew his motion before the trial court could reach it for disposition.”
Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1994). “of the trial court to the Supreme Court shall not be conditioned upon his having filed in the trial court a motion for a new trial, but in the event a motion for a new trial is filed in the trial court by a party adversely affected by the judgment .”
Timmons Oil Co., Inc. v. Norman, 794 P.2d 400 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 4× “12 O.S.Supp. 1969 § 991(a). Appellant filed the petition in error on October 2, 1989, while the new-trial motion still stood undetermined.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 991(a): 15 cases
Turpen v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 769 P.2d 1309 (Okla. 1989). “See infra note 24 for text of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(a). . Transok Pipe Line Company v.”
Sparlin v. Jackson, 918 P.2d 740 (Okla. 1996). “[4] See the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 991(a). [5] The March 29 order was appealable within 30 days of its entry.”
Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 681 P.2d 757 (Okla. 1984). “The critical ground on which the plaintiff rested its motion to vacate was: “The journal entry of judgment prepared by the counsel for the Defendant is contrary to the prevailing Oklahoma law as reflected in applicable cases and statutes.”
Timmons Oil Co., Inc. v. Norman, 794 P.2d 400 (Okla. 1990). “12 O.S.Supp. 1969 § 991(a). Appellant filed the petition in error on October 2, 1989, while the new-trial motion still stood undetermined.”
Benham v. Keller, 673 P.2d 152 (Okla. 1983).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 991(b): 42 cases
Wetsel v. Indep. Sch. Dist. I-1, 670 P.2d 986 (Okla. 1983). “20 Secondly, the student clearly failed to comply with the mandatory terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(b). 21 This statute requires that errors available but not included in new trial motion be excluded from appellate consideration.”
Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 681 P.2d 757 (Okla. 1984). “The critical ground on which the plaintiff rested its motion to vacate was: “The journal entry of judgment prepared by the counsel for the Defendant is contrary to the prevailing Oklahoma law as reflected in applicable cases and statutes.”
Reeves v. Agee, 769 P.2d 745 (Okla. 1989). “The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 991(b) provide: "If a motion for a new trial be filed and a new trial be denied, the movant may not, on the appeal, raise allegations of error that were available to him at the time of the filing of his motion for a new trial but were not therein…”
City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., 2011 OK 1 (Okla. 2011). “3d 812, 813 ; 12 O.S.2001 § 991(b); 6 Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 674 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1983). “12 O.S.1981 § 991(b). Here the husband sought a new trial but withdrew his motion before the trial court could reach it for disposition.”
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.