Any officer not subject to impeachment elected or appointed to any state, county, township, city, town or other office under the laws of the state may, in addition to any other methods and causes provided by law, be removed from office for any of the following causes: First. Habitual or willful neglect of duty which, for a state officer, shall include, but not be limited to, knowingly giving false testimony to a committee of either house of the Legislature, knowingly engaging in operations beyond the constitutional or statutory authority delegated to the agency that the officer is employed by or serves, or repeatedly refusing to provide information to a committee, either house or a member of the Legislature in a timely manner. For the purposes of this section, “timely manner” means no more than fifteen (15) business days from the date the request for information was received by the agency, unless extended by written agreement. Second. Gross partiality in office. Third. Oppression in office. Fourth. Corruption in office, which shall include the use of public office or authority to procure or attempt to procure a personal benefit, profit, or perquisite. Fifth. Extortion or willful overcharge of fees in office. Sixth. Willful maladministration. Seventh. Habitual drunkenness. Eighth. Failure to produce and account for all public funds and property in his or her hands, at any settlement or inspection authorized or required by law. R.L.1910, § 5592. Amended by Laws 2021, c. 289, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2021; Laws 2025, c. 336, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case:
Hall v. Tirey, 501 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1972).
Hall v. Tirey, 501 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1972).
· cites it 4× “2d 1112, 1117 (1957), that “the statutory manner for removing from office public officers not subject to impeachment is exclusive,” appellee argues that appellant did not have the authority to remove him from office without following the procedures for removal of officers found…”
Russell v. Henderson, 603 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Such a posture is consistent with our past holding to the effect that a member of the judiciary elected within a district and not by the state citizenry at large is subject to removal under the provisions of 22 O.”
Graham v. Cannon, 574 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The other methods prescribed by law are “removal” [22 O.S.1971, §§ 1181 et seq.] and “ouster” [51 O.”
Lee v. Norick, 447 P.2d 1015 (Okla. 1968).
· cites it 2× “We assume he has reference to 22 O.S.1961 § 1181, et seq., in which causes and procedure for removal *1017 of officers are set forth.”
Whatley v. City of Bartlesville, 932 F. Supp. 1300 (N.D. Okla. 1996).
“Specifically, he relies upon 22 O.S. §§ 1181, 1182. The Court finds that such reliance is misplaced.”
Spencer v. Wyrick, 2017 OK 19, 392 P.3d 290.
“7 For example, in addition to discussing the Court on the Judiciary, Cannon discusses a removal action by 22 O.S.§ 1181 (which specifies causes for removal for any officer not subject to impeachment), and an ouster action 51 O.”
Spencer v. Wyrick, 2017 OK 19.
· cites it 3× “7 For example, in addition to discussing the Court on the Judiciary, Cannon discusses a removal action by 22 O.S.§ 1181 (which specifies causes for removal for any officer not subject to impeachment), and an ouster action 51 O.”
Hutchison v. State, 318 P.2d 885 (Okla. 1957).
“22 O.S.1951 § 1181 et seq., in the name of the State, by the filing, in the trial court, of an “Accusation”, dated June 15th of that year, presented to said court by a grand jury.”
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.