Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 154 (2026)

Language governs

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

The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity. R.L.1910, § 948.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 845 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 845 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 154 (2016) (“The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK 100 (Okla. 2006). “The terms of 15 O.S.2001 § 154 provide: The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
BP Am., Inc. v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2005 OK 65 (Okla. 2005). “Title 15 O.S.2001 § 154; 36 O.S.2001 § 3621; Phillips v.”
Founders Bank & Trust Co. v. Upsher, 830 P.2d 1355 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “15 O.S.1981 § 154; Lum v. Lee Way, supra note 13 at 815; Riverside, supra note 4 at 441.”
Walker v. BuildDirect.com Tech., Inc., 2015 OK 30 (Okla. 2015). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 154 . Thus, unambignous, clear, and consistent contract terms will be enforced as written to carry out the expressed intention of the parties.”
Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003). “" 15 O.S.2001 § 154: "The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
Colclasure v. Colclasure, 295 P.3d 1123 (Okla. 2012). “Title 15 O.S.2011 § 154; JPMorgan Chase Bank v.”
Miller v. Bill & Carolyn Ltd. P'ship (In Re Baldwin), 593 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2010). “For similar reasons, we reject Defendant’s argument that the withdrawal provision should not be enforced because it defeats the purpose of forming a family partnership.”
First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 859 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1993). “15 O.S.1991 § 154. See also Smart v. Bossler, 101 Okla.”
Osprey L.L.C v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co., 1999 OK 50 (Okla. 1999). “1991 § 152; 15 O.S.1991 § 154; Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.”
Gamble, Simmons & Co. v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp., 175 F.3d 762 (10th Cir. 1999). “1995); Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 154 . If the contract is ambiguous, then we may resort to extrinsic evidence, including the subsequent statements and actions of the parties, in order to construe the agreement.”
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, 881 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2018). “1999) (acknowledging that, in Oklahoma, "[i]f the contract is unambiguous its language is the only legitimate evidence of what the parties intended, and [courts] will not rely on extrinsic evidence to vary or alter the plain meaning” (citation omitted)); see also Okla. Stat.…”
Show all 67 citing cases →
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.