Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 811 (2026)
Repealed by Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 6, § 3, eff. Nov
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1958–1978 · leading case: State v. Edens, 565 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
State v. Edens, 565 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). “The Court notes that 22 O.S.1971, §§ 811 and 812, respectively provide a remedy for post-accusation delay, where there has not been a timely filing of an information or indictment after a person has been held to answer for a public offense; and, where without cause, there has…”
Walters v. Williams, 474 P.2d 661 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970). “Under the provisions of 22 O.S. § 811, petitioner is seeking dismissal of two murder charges pending against him in the District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma.”
Thacker v. Marshall, 331 P.2d 488 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). “We rejected the argument that this court had no jurisdiction because there was no case yet pending that would justify the writ sought for and that this court did not have jurisdiction.”
Vierrether v. State, 583 P.2d 1112 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “134, § 2 of 1969 Session Laws, 32 Legislature, and since 22 O.S.1971, §§ 811 and 812 have not been repealed, we interpret these statutes to contemplate a reasonable period of delay.”
State v. Dickson, 332 P.2d 1109 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). “It was- further urged that the prosecution must be dismissed under the provisions of 22 O.S.1951 § 811, providing that “when a person has been held to answer for a public offense, if an indictment or information is not filed against him at the next term of court at which he is…”
Snow v. Turner, 406 P.2d 509 (Okla. Crim. App. 1965). “” Because of the uncertainty of the interpretation of a speedy trial as provided by the Constitution, the legislature rightfully implemented its meaning by defining a speedy trial by the enactment of 22 O.S.1951, § 811 and § 812, which require a defendant to be brought to trial…”
Jennings v. Raines, 353 P.2d 147 (Okla. Crim. App. 1960). “22 O.S.1951 §§ 811, 812; O.S.1951 Const. Art.”
State ex rel. Pitchford v. Dist. Court of the 24th Jud. Dist. of Oklahoma, 323 P.2d 993 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). “menced, but from the time it begins until it ends his supervision and control is complete, limited only by legal restrictions; that the district court may make suggestions to a county attorney with reference to filing an information, but that he may not order the county attorney…”
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.