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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 992 (2026)

Errors in perfecting appeals - Raising - Waiver

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

Where possible, errors in perfecting an appeal must be raised promptly in the trial court, and errors in perfecting an appeal that could have been raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time in the appellate court. The parties may waive any defect or error in perfecting an appeal except the timely filing of a petition in error as prescribed in Section 15 of this act, and of a petition to review a certified interlocutory order under paragraph 3 of subsection (b) of Section 952 of this title. Added by Laws 1970, c. 88, § 1. Amended by Laws 1990, c. 251, § 13, eff. Jan. 1, 1991; Laws 1991, c. 251, § 16, eff. June 1, 1991.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1973–2013 · leading case: Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 992 provided: “Where possible, errors in perfecting an appeal must be raised promptly in the trial court, and errors in perfecting an appeal that could have been raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time in the appellate…”
Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co., 786 P.2d 1230 (Okla. 1989). “]” The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 992 provide: "Where possible, errors in perfecting an appeal must be raised promptly in the trial court, and errors in perfecting an appeal that could have been raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time in the…”
Jones v. Alpine Investments, Inc., 764 P.2d 513 (Okla. 1987). “12 O.S.1981 § 992; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co.”
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113 (Okla. 1978). “12 O.S.1971 § 992. Appellant’s proposition One is moot, there having been obtained and filed a journal entry nunc pro tunc pursuant to Order of this Court.”
Vickers v. Boyd, 836 P.2d 1269 (Okla. 1992). “The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1981 § 992 provide: "Where possible, errors in perfecting an appeal must be raised promptly in the trial court, and errors in perfecting an appeal that could have been raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time in the appellate…”
Transok Pipe Line Co. v. Darks, 515 P.2d 218 (Okla. 1973). “A Court rule may not contravene a statute and where these are inconsistent the statute must prevail.”
Martinez v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2014 OK CIV APP 17, 321 P.3d 991. “2d 1113 (citing 12 O.S.1971 § 992). We find no record that this claim of error was made below, or that any objection based on the timing of the breath test evidence was made.”
Martinez v. State ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2014 OK CIV APP 17. “2d 1113 (citing 12 O.S.1971 § 992). We find no record that this claim of error was made below, or that any objection based on the timing of the breath test evidence was made.”
Bond v. Oklahoma Nat. Gas, 849 P.2d 1100 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “12 O.S.1991, § 992; Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co.”
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.