Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 151 (2026)

All contracts, public and private, interpreted by same

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

rules. All contracts, whether public or private, are to be interpreted by the same rules, except as otherwise provided by law. R.L.1910, § 945.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1967–2018 · leading case: Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48, 78 P.3d 921.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48, 78 P.3d 921. · cites it 2× “¶ 13 The intent of the parties at the time they entered into an agreement controls the meaning of their written contract, and the statutory rules for ascertaining intent are set out at 15 O.S.2001 §§ 151 through 157. Founders Bank and Trust Co.”
State Ex Rel. Commissioners of the Land Off. v. Butler, 753 P.2d 1334 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 2× “The rules of interpretation of contract, both statutory as set forth in 15 O.S.1981, § 151, et seq., and non-statutory rules such ejusdem generis, are for use by the court to determine whether an ambiguity exists.”
Gamble, Simmons & Co. v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp., 175 F.3d 762 (10th Cir. 1999). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 151 — 178. These statutes provide that whenever possible we must give effect to mutual intent of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract, so long as it is unambiguous on its face and there exists no “fraud, accident, or pure…”
Founders Bank & Trust Co. v. Upsher, 830 P.2d 1355 (Okla. 1992). “The statutory rules for ascertaining that intent are set out at 15 O.S.1981 §§ 151 through 157. The terms of 15 O.”
WLM Retail Trust v. Tramlaw Remainderman Ltd. P'ship, 2018 IL App (1st) 170819, 99 N.E.3d 116. “Specifically, Tramlaw contends that the Agreement only permitted WLM to purchase the property upon the expiration or termination of the original term of the WalMart lease, which expired on January 31, 2009.”
Nat'l Home Life Assurance Co. v. Patterson, 746 P.2d 696 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “15 O.S.1981 § 151 et seq.; Lester v. Sparks, 583 P.”
Wickham v. Equity Fire & Cas. Co., 889 P.2d 1258 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “15 O.S.1991 §§ 151, 152, 155; Provident Life & Accident Ins.”
Paclawski v. Bristol Labs., Inc., 425 P.2d 452 (Okla. 1967). “The Oklahoma Statutes on Interpretation of Contracts, 15 O.S.1961, Section 151 et seq., make no reference to the rule of priority.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth. v. Walter Nashert & Sons, Inc., 518 P.2d 1267 (Okla. 1974). “We are supported in this conclusion by 15 O.S.1971 § 151. It is also provided that a contract is governed by mutual intention of the parties as it existed at time of contracting.”
Mitchell v. Kimbrough, 491 P.2d 289 (Okla. 1971). “This contention collides rather abruptly with 15 O.S.1961, § 151, which says: “All contracts, whether public or private are to be interpreted by the same rules, except as otherwise provided by law.”
MJ LEE CONST. v. Oklahoma Transp. Auth., 2005 OK 87, 125 P.3d 1205. “15 O.S.2001, § 151. The specifications are standardized contract provisions prepared by the Authority and included in most, if not all, of its highway construction contracts awarded in 1999.”
Gamble, Simmons v. Kerr-McGee (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 151 - 178. These statutes provide that whenever possible we must give effect to mutual intent of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract, so long as it is unambiguous on its face and there exists no “fraud, accident, or pure…”
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.