In all suits or proceedings by or against a county, the name in which a county shall sue or be sued shall be, "Board of County Commissioners of the County of _____," but this provision shall not prevent county officers, where authorized by law, from suing in
their official name for the benefit of the county. Suit may be brought against a county by naming a county officer identified in Section 161 of this title when it is alleged that such officer in his or her official capacity is directly or vicariously liable to plaintiff in an action not arising out of contract. Otherwise, suit may be brought against a county by naming the Board of County Commissioners of the County of _____; in actions against the Board not arising out of contract, upon motion, the Court may substitute a county officer identified in Section 161 of this title in his or her official capacity for the Board upon a showing that such county officer is better suited to represent and defend the county under the particular facts of the case. R.L. 1910, § 1500. Amended by Laws 2019, c. 171, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Gaines v. Pearson, 516 F. App'x 724 (10th Cir. 2013).
“As for Muskogee County, Plaintiff failed to properly name Muskogee County according to the statutory requirements of Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4 . Further, the county is immune from any state law tort claims.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Highways v. McKnight, 496 P.2d 775 (Okla. 1972).
“McKnight, an individual doing business as McKnight Construction Company, as plaintiff, sought a money judgment against LeFlore County, Oklahoma (properly designated therein, pursuant to 19 O.S.1961 § 4, as the Board of County Commissioners of LeFlore County, Oklahoma), J.”
Cnty. of Okmulgee ex rel. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 368 P.2d 502 (Okla. 1962).
“” At all stages of this proceeding defendant was represented by the County Attorney of Ok-mulgee County. The notice that was issued in connection with the filing of the petition was served on the County Clerk of Okmulgee County.”
Johnson v. McAdoo, 150 F.R.D. 684 (W.D. Okla. 1993).
“Okla.Stat. tit. 19, § 4. If plaintiffs intention was to hold the county liable for the alleged misconduct of McAdoo as county assessor, counsels’ legal inquiry was incomplete in failing to determine the proper legal entity against whom to file the complaint.”
Holbert v. Cimarron Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (W.D. Okla. 2021).
· cites it 3× “In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Board is a proper defendant because the Board may be a named party in a suit against a county, and the County here is a proper defendant under Okla. Stat. tit. 19 § 4 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”
Pasqualetti v. Johnson (W.D. Okla. 2021).
· cites it 3× “The Board argues that, under 19 O.S. § 4, the proper defendant for this purpose is not the Board but a county official named in his official capacity.”
Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Cty. of Okl. v. Weatherford, 565 P.2d 35 (Okla. 1977).
“1971, § 77) and State Industrial Court Rule 8, by registered notice to hospital, hence review proceeding should be dismissed because award became final 20 days after December 6, 1976.”
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.