Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 161 (2026)

Technical words

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a different sense. R.L.1910, § 955.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: Scrivner v. Sonat Expl. Co., 242 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scrivner v. Sonat Expl. Co., 242 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2001). “However, the court misconstrued the use of that term in conjunction with the remainder of the contract.”

Heskett v. Heskett, 896 P.2d 1200 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “” 15 O.S.1991 § 161. In any case, it is fundamental that a party to an unambiguous written contract is estopped to insist upon an unnatural construction in order to support a construction more favorable to herself.”

Mecom v. Morris (N.D. Okla. 2022). “1936); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 161 (“Technical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a different sense.”

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.