Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53 (2026)

When consent not real

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

An apparent consent is not real or free when obtained through: 1. Duress. 2. Menace. 3. Fraud. 4. Undue influence. or, 5. Mistake. R.L.1910, § 898.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Bobo v. Bigbee, 548 P.2d 224 (Okla. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bobo v. Bigbee, 548 P.2d 224 (Okla. 1976). “12 § 2 supra, making the contract null and void. Act 12 § 2 states “nor shall the owner, if married, sell the homestead without the consent of his or her spouse, given in such manner as may be prescribed by law.”
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). · cites it 13× “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
Moore v. Bob Howard German Imports, 2023 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). “" 15 O.S. § 53. Moore contends that he was fraudulently induced to sign the arbitration agreements because the Dealership's finance director told him they did not apply to him.”
Cimarron Pipeline Constr., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 848 P.2d 1161 (Okla. 1993). “insurance industry from any refund as directed in Turpén; that USF & G and all other insurers who write workers’ compensation insurance in this state have violated Oklahoma law by charging rates for workers’ compensation insurance in excess of the rates approved by the Board;…”
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (N.D. Okla. 2025). · cites it 2× “78 at 20:20–23; 25:2– 5; 28:13–15; 28:20–21; 29:19–21; 30:17–18; 39:9–14.”
Moore v. Bob Howard German Imports, 531 P.3d 657 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). “§ 52 15 O.S. § 53 See 15 O.S. § 58 15 O.S. § 60 Bradley v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53(2) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53(3) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53(4) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 53(5) — 1 case
RCB Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter), 177 B.R. 951 (N.D. Okla. 1994). “The Bankruptcy Court based these conclusions on the following facts revealed through the parties’ testimony: (1) McKinney did not kidnap anyone or steal or impound any of the debtors’ property, so there was no “duress” within the meaning of Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 53(1) or § 55;…”
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.