Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 (2026)

Restraint of trade

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

Every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, otherwise than as provided by Sections 218 and 219 of this title, or otherwise than as provided by Section 2 of this act, is to that extent void. R.L.1910, § 978. Amended by Laws 1989, c. 359, § 1, emerg. eff. June 3, 1989; Laws 2001, c. 406, § 3, emerg. eff. June 4, 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 3× “It is also argued that the bylaw constitutes a contract which restrains the coaches from exercising their lawful profession in violation of 15 O.S.1971 § 217. 27 We do not agree. The bylaw does not prevent the coaches from engaging in their trade as a coach.”
Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard, 780 P.2d 1168 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 4× “On June 14, 1989, we granted certiorari to consider a question of first impression: whether a court may modify an otherwise void covenant not to compete so that the covenant constitutes a reasonable restraint on trade falling outside the forbidden parameters of 15 O.S.1981 §…”
Chris Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 .* These different policy choices — Texas’s view which prioritizes parties’ freedom to contract and Oklahoma’s which emphasizes the right to earn a living and competition — came to a head when Texas-based Prosperity Bank acquired Oklahoma-based F & M…”
Crown Paint Co. v. Bankston, 640 P.2d 948 (Okla. 1981). · cites it 4× “Crown also argues that it was entitled to summary judgment against Bankston as a matter of law under 15 O.S. § 217 (1971), as said contract restricts a citizen from engaging in a lawful profession.”
Hill v. Mobile Auto Trim, Inc., 725 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. 1987). · cites it 2× “Code § 9-08-06 (1960); Oklahoma: Okla.Stat. tit. 15 § 217 (1966); South Dakota: S.”
Tatum v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 465 P.2d 448 (Okla. 1970). · cites it 6× “The primary question presented is whether or not such contractual restriction upon the activities of the defendant is void under the provisions of 15 O.S.1961, § 217: “Every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any…”
Key Temp. Pers., Inc. v. Cox, 884 P.2d 1213 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “1 On appeal, Cox maintains the non-solicitation covenants contained' in the employment agreement unreasonably restrain trade in violation of 15 O.S.1991, § 217, and therefore, are not enforceable.”
Howard v. Nitro-Lift Tech., L.L.C., 273 P.3d 20 (Okla. 2011). · cites it 2× “The employees contend that they received no confidential information during their employment with Nitro-Lift and that the non-compete provisions of the employment contract are void 23 as a matter of law pursuant to 15 O.S.2001 § 217. 24 Based on the Legislature's more precise…”
Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. Cahill, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (E.D. Okla. 2013). · cites it 3× “*1290 The non-solicitation agreement is not a restraint of trade Defendant Cahill first argues that the non-solicitation clause is unenforceable under Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 as a restraint of trade.”
Hansen v. Edwards, 426 P.2d 792 (Nev. 1967). · cites it 2× “Code § 9-0806 (1943); Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 (1951).”
Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 (Okla. 1988). “He then argues that the forfeiture provision is inequitable, void under 15 O.S.1981 § 217, and violates this State’s public policy concerning standards of employment proprieties.”
Gabler v. Holder & Smith, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 107 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000). “" 154 The non-compete contract pertained to Darrell Gabler only and Gablers have not established 'even reasonable assurance he would have achieved the economic advantage alleged if there were no non-compete contract.”
Show all 34 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.