Okla. Stat. » Title 12A — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 2000, c. 371, § 185, eff. July 1,

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

2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1983–1998 · leading case: Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). · cites it 6× “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
Mitchell Coach Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Okla. 1998). · cites it 4× “12A O.S. § 9-103.1(1)(c). It is undisputed that Mitchell, WW and Stephens understood at the time Mitchell transferred the MCO to WW that the motor home would be kept in Texas.”
Woodson v. Cmty. Bank & Trust Co. (In Re B & S Motor Freight, Inc.), 59 B.R. 259 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1986). · cites it 2× “Conversely, Community Bank argues that Okla.Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2), see infra, applies to this adversary proceeding and that perfection by lien notation on the Illinois certificates of title is effective, valid, and superior to those liens alleged by the Trustee.”
Wheels, Inc. v. Otasco, Inc. (In Re Otasco, Inc.), 111 B.R. 976 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1990). “For an exception specified by statute, see 12A O.S. § 9-103.1; In re Foster, 611 P.2d 232 (Okla.”
Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. v. Babb (In Re Hughen), 38 B.R. 13 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “However, 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1 makes clear that even though Arpin may have perfected its security interest in Rhode Island, such perfection lapsed by the time the debtor filed its petition in bankruptcy such that Oklahoma law would govern perfection or non-perfection after the…”
In Re Ramey, 93 B.R. 136 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “The court, citing Okla.Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2), the equivalent to Tenn.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(1)(c) — 1 case
Mitchell Coach Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Okla. 1998). “12A O.S. § 9-103.1(1)(c). It is undisputed that Mitchell, WW and Stephens understood at the time Mitchell transferred the MCO to WW that the motor home would be kept in Texas.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2) — 3 cases
Mitchell Coach Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Okla. 1998). “12A O.S. § 9-103.1(1)(c). It is undisputed that Mitchell, WW and Stephens understood at the time Mitchell transferred the MCO to WW that the motor home would be kept in Texas.”
Woodson v. Cmty. Bank & Trust Co. (In Re B & S Motor Freight, Inc.), 59 B.R. 259 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1986). “Conversely, Community Bank argues that Okla.Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2), see infra, applies to this adversary proceeding and that perfection by lien notation on the Illinois certificates of title is effective, valid, and superior to those liens alleged by the Trustee.”
In Re Ramey, 93 B.R. 136 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1988). “The court, citing Okla.Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2), the equivalent to Tenn.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2)(a) — 1 case
Woodson v. Cmty. Bank & Trust Co. (In Re B & S Motor Freight, Inc.), 59 B.R. 259 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1986). “Conversely, Community Bank argues that Okla.Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2), see infra, applies to this adversary proceeding and that perfection by lien notation on the Illinois certificates of title is effective, valid, and superior to those liens alleged by the Trustee.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(2)(b) — 1 case
Mitchell Coach Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Okla. 1998). “12A O.S. § 9-103.1(1)(c). It is undisputed that Mitchell, WW and Stephens understood at the time Mitchell transferred the MCO to WW that the motor home would be kept in Texas.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(3) — 1 case
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(3)(a) — 1 case
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(3)(b) — 1 case
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(3)(d) — 1 case
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(b) — 1 case
Mitchell Coach Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (N.D. Okla. 1998). “12A O.S. § 9-103.1(1)(c). It is undisputed that Mitchell, WW and Stephens understood at the time Mitchell transferred the MCO to WW that the motor home would be kept in Texas.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 9-103.1(l)(c) — 1 case
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Ramco Well Serv., Inc. (In Re Ramco Well Serv., Inc.), 32 B.R. 525 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983). “See 12A O.S.1981 § 9-103.1(3). This requires a determination of where Rameo was located and whether the rigs are trucks or mobile goods.”
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.