Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4 (2026)
See the following versions:
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked July 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
OS 22-60.4v1 (SB 623, Laws 2025, c. 40, § 1) OS 22-60.4v2 (HB 2104, Laws 2025, c. 486, § 704)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Sunderland v. Zimmerman, 2019 OK CIV APP 27, 441 P.3d 179.
Sunderland v. Zimmerman, 2019 OK CIV APP 27, 441 P.3d 179. “22 O.S. § 60.4. This preservation of parties' procedural rights is furthered by applying the Discovery Code in proceedings for protective orders under the Act, although discovery may be unnecessary in a large majority of cases, and may be restricted in accordance with 12 O.”
Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984). “22 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 60.4(B). 5 . The Act does not specifically provide for such an order, nor was it requested by Appellant at trial.”
Gilbert v. State, 765 P.2d 1208 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “First, he claims that "visit" is not a defined term, and that a person of ordinary intelligence is unable to ascertain its meaning in the context of an order authorized by 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 60.4(D)(2). It is a common rule of statutory construction that words in a statute are…”
Parsons v. Dist. Court of Pushmataha Cnty., 2017 OK 97, 408 P.3d 586. “Examples of legal proceedings which have both criminal and civil components include deprived child cases; ex-pungement proceedings; actions séeking issuance of a protective order under 22 O.S. § 60.4; appeals stemming from criminal bond forfeiture; and civil forfeiture suits.”
Galbraith v. Galbraith, 2024 OK 43, 550 P.3d 942. “3, 22 O.S., § 60.4, 22 O.S., § 60.5, and 22 O.”
Calhoun v. State, 820 P.2d 819 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 60.4(F). However, the protective order did divest appellant of any possesso-ry interest in the dwelling.”
Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 875 P.2d 447 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “” 22 O.S.1991 § 60.4(A) (emphasis ours). “Within ten (10) days of the filing of the petition the court shall schedule a full hearing on the petition.”
Bowers v. Flick, 2017 OK CIV APP 49. “The trial court granted an Emergency Ex Parte Order of Protection ("Ex Parte Order") that same day and set the hearing for January 20, 2015, in compliance with 22 O.S.Supp.2013 §60.4(B)(1) (amended by Laws 2017, c.”
Parsons v. Dist. Court of Pushmataha Cnty., 2017 OK 97. “Examples of legal proceedings which have both criminal and civil components include deprived child cases; expungement proceedings; actions seeking issuance of a protective order under 22 O.S. § 60.4; appeals stemming from criminal bond forfeiture; and civil forfeiture suits.”
Kite v. Culbertson, 2025 OK 3, 565 P.3d 38. “¶30 Title 22 O.S. 2021 §60.4 6. A final protective order shall be granted or denied within six (6) months of service on the defendant unless all parties agree that a temporary protective order remain in effect; provided, a victim shall have the right to request a final…”
Flury v. Howard, 813 P.2d 1052 (Okla. 1991). “Final protective orders are authorized by 22 O.S.Supp.1987 § 60.4(C). Any protective order issued pursuant to subsection C "shall not be for a fixed period but shall be continuous until modified or rescinded upon motion by either party or if the court approves any consent…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(A): 1 case
Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 875 P.2d 447 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “” 22 O.S.1991 § 60.4(A) (emphasis ours). “Within ten (10) days of the filing of the petition the court shall schedule a full hearing on the petition.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(B): 2 cases
Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984). “22 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 60.4(B). 5 . The Act does not specifically provide for such an order, nor was it requested by Appellant at trial.”
Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 875 P.2d 447 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “” 22 O.S.1991 § 60.4(A) (emphasis ours). “Within ten (10) days of the filing of the petition the court shall schedule a full hearing on the petition.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(B)(1): 2 cases
Sunderland v. Zimmerman, 2019 OK CIV APP 27, 441 P.3d 179. “22 O.S. § 60.4. This preservation of parties' procedural rights is furthered by applying the Discovery Code in proceedings for protective orders under the Act, although discovery may be unnecessary in a large majority of cases, and may be restricted in accordance with 12 O.”
Bowers v. Flick, 2017 OK CIV APP 49. “The trial court granted an Emergency Ex Parte Order of Protection ("Ex Parte Order") that same day and set the hearing for January 20, 2015, in compliance with 22 O.S.Supp.2013 §60.4(B)(1) (amended by Laws 2017, c.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(B)(6): 1 case
Sunderland v. Zimmerman, 2019 OK CIV APP 27, 441 P.3d 179. “22 O.S. § 60.4. This preservation of parties' procedural rights is furthered by applying the Discovery Code in proceedings for protective orders under the Act, although discovery may be unnecessary in a large majority of cases, and may be restricted in accordance with 12 O.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(C): 1 case
Flury v. Howard, 813 P.2d 1052 (Okla. 1991). “Final protective orders are authorized by 22 O.S.Supp.1987 § 60.4(C). Any protective order issued pursuant to subsection C "shall not be for a fixed period but shall be continuous until modified or rescinded upon motion by either party or if the court approves any consent…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(D): 1 case
Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984). “22 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 60.4(B). 5 . The Act does not specifically provide for such an order, nor was it requested by Appellant at trial.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(D)(2): 1 case
Gilbert v. State, 765 P.2d 1208 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “First, he claims that "visit" is not a defined term, and that a person of ordinary intelligence is unable to ascertain its meaning in the context of an order authorized by 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 60.4(D)(2). It is a common rule of statutory construction that words in a statute are…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(E): 1 case
Marquette v. Marquette, 686 P.2d 990 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984). “22 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 60.4(B). 5 . The Act does not specifically provide for such an order, nor was it requested by Appellant at trial.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.4(F): 1 case
Calhoun v. State, 820 P.2d 819 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 60.4(F). However, the protective order did divest appellant of any possesso-ry interest in the dwelling.”
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.