Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 216 (2026)

Resort to courts, provisions restricting - Limiting time

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

therefor. Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void. R.L.1910, § 977.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: McDonald v. Amtel, Inc., 633 P.2d 743 (Okla. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDonald v. Amtel, Inc., 633 P.2d 743 (Okla. 1981). · cites it 8× “” Relying on the provisions of 15 O.S., § 216, McDonald argues that the contract provision quoted above is void and unenforceable.”
NMP Corp. v. Parametric Tech. Corp., 958 F. Supp. 1536 (N.D. Okla. 1997). · cites it 7× “It further contends that Oklahoma law governs the tort causes of action, and thus a limitations period of two years from the date of discovery of the tort applies to Plaintiffs tort claims pursuant to Okla. Star. tit. 12 § 95. NMP also submits that even if the contractual choice…”
Gemini Tech., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019). “§ 9 - 08-05; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 216 ; N.C. Gen.”
Cannon v. Lane, 867 P.2d 1235 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 3× “Title 15 O.S.1991, § 216, the statute cited as support for the Boughton holding, *1239 provides: “Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary…”
Rollings v. Thermodyne Indus., Inc., 910 P.2d 1030 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “Aside from these cases, we noted that 15 O.S.1991, § 216 makes void any contract which restricts a party’s right to enforce his rights by the “usual legal proceedings.”
Porter v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 643 P.2d 302 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 2× “We have previously held that consent to sue, no action, and arbitration clauses are void as against public policy and contrary to 15 O.S.1971, § 216. 5 We have held such clauses void on the rationale that said clauses attempt to place the requirement of the insurer’s permission…”
Uptegraft v. Home Ins. Co., 662 P.2d 681 (Okla. 1983). “8 The insured, relying on the provisions of 15 O.S.1981 § 216, argues that this provision is void and unenforceable in Oklahoma.”
Sherwood Forest No. 2 Corp. v. City of Norman, 632 P.2d 368 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 2× “The two year limitations prescribed in the bond is void under 15 O.S.1971, § 216. 4 Appellant’s contention that appel-lee’s action on the bond became barred five years after 65% of the development was completed cannot be sustained.”
Keel v. MFA Ins. Co., 553 P.2d 153 (Okla. 1976). “It is provided by 15 O.S.1971, § 216: “Every stipulation or condition in a contract by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus…”
M.J. Lee Constr. Co. v. Oklahoma Transp. Auth., 125 P.3d 1205 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 3× “23, §§ 8 17 and 9 18 and 15 O.S.2001, § 216. 19 ¶ 27 A condition precedent is an act that must be performed on one side before an obligation arises on the other side; the obligation on one side is dependent on the performance of some act on the other side.”
Boughton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 354 P.2d 1085 (Okla. 1960). “Title 15 O.S.1951 § 216 provides: “Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing, his rights under the contract by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, * * * .”
Evans v. Kirke-Van Orsdel, 122 F. App'x 947 (10th Cir. 2004). “Plaintiff argues in passing that an exhaustion clause in a contract “cannot pre *952 vent suit from being brought,” citing Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 216. Aplt. Br. in Chief at 26 n.”
Show all 18 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.