other courts. The district courts of the State of Oklahoma are the successors to the jurisdiction of all other courts, including the Superior Courts, the County Courts, the Courts of Common Pleas, Special Sessions Courts, Courts of Special Sessions, City Courts, Juvenile Courts, Children's Courts, Justice of the Peace Courts, and municipal courts in civil matters and proceedings for the violation of state statutes. Wherever reference is made in the Oklahoma Statutes to any of the above courts or to the judge thereof, it shall be deemed to refer to the district court or a judge thereof; provided, however, that any statute that refers to the salary of the judge of any Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, County Court, Juvenile Court, or Children's Court, insofar as that portion of the statute dealing with salary is concerned, shall not be deemed to refer to any district judge, associate district judge or special judge, and any salary mentioned in such statute shall not be paid to the judge who succeeded to the jurisdiction of the judge who is named in the statute. Added by Laws 1968, c. 162, § 1, eff. Jan. 13, 1969.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1974–2014 · leading case:
Hain v. State, 919 P.2d 1130 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
Hain v. State, 919 P.2d 1130 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “20 O.S.1991, § 91.1. Criminal offenses committed in other states is beyond the purview of the Oklahoma state judicial system.”
Triplet v. Franklin, 365 F. App'x 86 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “7, § § 7(a) (“The District Court shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters, except as otherwise provided in this Article ....”), 7(b) (“All Courts in the State of Oklahoma .”
Jernigan v. Jernigan, 2006 OK 22 (Okla. 2006).
“) and the provisions of 20 O.S.2001 § 91.1 became effective 13 January 1969, the remedial track for probate had its point of inception in the since-defunct county court.”
Wilson v. Kane, 852 P.2d 717 (Okla. 1993).
“20 O.S.1981 § 91.1 (adopted verbatim from Okl.”
Williams v. Mulvihill, 846 P.2d 1097 (Okla. 1993).
“20 O.S.1991 § 91.1. Adopted verbatim from Laws, 1968, c.”
In Re the Est. of Kizziar, 554 P.2d 791 (Okla. 1976).
“7, and 20 O.S.1971 § 91.1. The opinion reads, in part: “The new Judicial Article did not abolish nor alter the distinction between various types of court actions whether established by common law or statutes.”
Duke v. Nelson, 536 P.2d 412 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975).
“” 20 O.S.1971, § 91.1 provides: “The District Courts of the State of Oklahoma are the successors to the jurisdiction of all other courts, including the Superior Courts, the County Courts, The new Judicial Article did not abolish nor alter the distinction between various types of…”
Stratton v. Steele, 519 P.2d 468 (Okla. 1974).
“” Neither are we persuaded that under the statutes reorganizing the district courts (20 O.S.1971 § 91.1 et seq.) has there been any legislative intent to divest the continuing jurisdiction of the district court first exercising jurisdiction over the custody of minors by virtue…”
Johnson v. State, 713 P.2d 598 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“1981 , § 436, 438; 20 O.S.1981, § 91.1; 22 O.S.1981, § 441. In the commentary of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Second Edition, Volume II Standard 13-2.”
Humphreys v. State, 738 P.2d 188 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Concerning the issue of jurisdiction raised on appeal, 20 O.S.1981, § 91.1, invested a district court with jurisdiction to hear civil matters and proceedings for violation of state statutes.”
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.