Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 211 (2026)

What contracts are unlawful

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

Those contracts are unlawful which are: 1. Contrary to an express provision of law. 2. Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or, 3. Otherwise contrary to good morals. R.L.1910, § 972.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard, 780 P.2d 1168 (Okla. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard, 780 P.2d 1168 (Okla. 1989). “Title 15 O.S.1981 § 211 provides: "Those contracts are unlawful which are: 1.”
Manning v. Brannon, 1998 OK CIV APP 17 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “And 15 O.S.1991 § 211 states: Those contracts are unlawful which are: 1.”
Childs v. Unified Life Ins. Co., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (N.D. Okla. 2011). “Plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim, although involving Section 317:30-5-133.1, is not brought pursuant to Section 317:30-5-133.”
Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 838 P.2d 535 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 162, which requires application of the law of the State where the contract is to be performed, or where a place of performance is not indicated, then according to the law of the State where the contract is made, unless such contract or its provisions are unlawful according to…”
O'BRIEN v. Dorrough, 928 P.2d 322 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “1983); 15 O.S.1991, § 211. 4 Courts should exercise their power to nullify contracts which contravene public policy “only rarely, with great caution and in cases that are free from doubt”.”
Dycus v. Belco Indus., Inc., 569 P.2d 553 (Okla. Civ. App. 1977). “” Next in line are the limited partners for repayment of their proportionate shares of any profits and return of their contributions.”
Branch v. Mobil Oil Corp., 772 F. Supp. 570 (W.D. Okla. 1991). “Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 211. Contracts which have as their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt one from responsibility for his own fraud; willful injury to the person or property of another; or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”
An-Cor, Inc. v. Reherman, 835 P.2d 93 (Okla. 1992). “” Title 15 O.S. § 211 provides that those contracts are unlawful which are: contrary to an express provision of law, contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or otherwise contrary to good morals.”
Tulsa Energy, Inc. v. Oklahoma Oil & Gas Mgmt., Inc. (In re Tulsa Energy, Inc.), 181 B.R. 544 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1995). “7 KPL contends that Dalco and Dynex Energy are bound by the language in the division orders which provides that if a dispute arises concerning title, unless such dispute is resolved to KPL’s satisfaction, KPL may withhold proceeds without interest. The Court disagrees with KPL’s…”
Eldredge v. Taylor, 2014 OK 92 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 2× “15 O.S.2011, § 211(1)-(2). 3 Specifically, Taylor argues that Oklahoma public policy is "for a child to have one mother, one father, or both, but not to have any other combination of parents," citing the prohibition on same-sex marriage, Okla.”
Tucker v. The Cochran Firm-Crim. Def. Birmingham L.L.C., 2014 OK 112 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 2× “15 O.S. 2011 § 211. 54 In Groendyke Transport, Inc.”
Question Submitted by: The Honorable Roger Thompson, Oklahoma State Senator, Dist. 8, 2017 OK AG 16 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2017). “Any agreement between a rural water district and the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to waive the district's exemption under 69 O.S.2011, § 1722 (C)--and thereby assume responsibility for costs that are the statutory obligation of the Turnpike Authority--is "[c]ontrary to an express…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 211(1): 1 case
Eldredge v. Taylor, 2014 OK 92 (Okla. 2014). “15 O.S.2011, § 211(1)-(2). 3 Specifically, Taylor argues that Oklahoma public policy is "for a child to have one mother, one father, or both, but not to have any other combination of parents," citing the prohibition on same-sex marriage, Okla.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 211(2): 1 case
Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 838 P.2d 535 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). “§ 162, which requires application of the law of the State where the contract is to be performed, or where a place of performance is not indicated, then according to the law of the State where the contract is made, unless such contract or its provisions are unlawful according to…”
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.