Okla. Stat. » Title 23 — DAMAGES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 2 (2026)

Damages as relief from forfeiture

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever, by the terms of an obligation, a party thereto incurs a forfeiture, or a loss in the nature of a forfeiture, by reason of his failure to comply with its provisions, he may be relieved therefrom, upon making full compensation to the other party, except in case of a grossly negligent, willful or fraudulent breach of duty. R.L. 1910, § 2844.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals, 869 P.2d 323 (Okla. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals, 869 P.2d 323 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “The terms of 23 O.S.1971 § 2 clearly mandate that courts avoid the effect of forfeiture by giving due consideration to compelling equitable circumstances.”
Hendrick v. Walters, 865 P.2d 1232 (Okla. 1993). “Section 2 provides in pertinent part: Whenever, by the terms of an obligation, a party thereto incurs a forfeiture, or a loss in the nature of a forfeiture, by reason of his failure to comply with its provision, he may be relieved therefrom, upon making full compensation to the…”
Stewart v. Amerada Hess Corp., 604 P.2d 854 (Okla. 1979). “23 O.S.1971, § 2. It would appear to me that an operator should be encouraged to continue production, even of small quantities of oil, so *859 that if the operator is willing to continue operation we should put as little burden on him as possible to show that production was in…”
Barby v. Singer, 648 P.2d 14 (Okla. 1982). “, supra, at page 858: “The terms of 23 O.S.1971, § 2 clearly mandate that courts avoid the effect of forfeiture by giving due consideration to compelling equitable circumstances.”
Ludwig v. William K. Warren Found., 809 P.2d 660 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “23 O.S. § 2 is found in the title named Damages.”
Fisher v. Grace Petroleum Corp., 830 P.2d 1380 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “1979) and 23 O.S.1981, Section 2 in support of their position.”
McClain v. Ricks Expl. Co., 894 P.2d 422 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). “23 O.S.1991, § 2. A lease continues in existence as long as interruption of production in paying quantities does not extend for a period longer than reasonable or justifiable in light of all the circumstances involved.”
RLM Petroleum Corp. v. Emmerich, 896 P.2d 531 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 2× “During the term of the mineral interest, the Leaseholders have produced oil pursuant to their rights under the lease.”
Tres C v. Raker Resources, 2023 OK 13 (Okla. 2023). “In the case before us, the event which can prevent termination under the Cowan Lease's cessation-of-production clause is the "resum[ption of] operations for drilling a well within sixty (60) days from such cessation.”
Tres C v. Raker Resources, 2023 OK 13 (Okla. 2023). “129 Such a temporary interruption in profitable production should not trigger the 60-day time limit in the cessation-of-production clause--particularly insofar as that clause was really designed to provide a grace period for protecting Defendants/Petitioners' leasehold…”
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.