Okla. Stat. » Title 25 — DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 25 (2026)

Number

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

Words used in the singular number include the plural, and the plural the singular, except where a contrary intention plainly appears. R.L.1910, § 2944.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). “They forget that Oklahoma law has a statute in relation to the meaning of terms and construction of statutes, see Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 25 , providing that “words used in the singular number include the plural, and the plural *295 the singular, except where a contrary intention…”
Medlock v. Admiral Safe Co., Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “25 O.S. § 25. The contrary intention must plainly appear and may not be inferred.”
Speer v. Petrolite Specialty Polymers Grp., 918 P.2d 92 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “” 25 O.S.1991, § 25. No contrary intention appears in § 22, and thus we conclude that the legislature intended to include bilateral her-niae within the limitation imposed by § 22’s “hernia paragraph.”
W. Sur. Co. v. Childers, 372 P.2d 214 (Okla. 1962). “” Webster’s New International Dictionary,, Second Edition, defines the word “any” as follows: “ * * * all, taken distributively; every; used esp.”
Question Submitted by: The Honorable A.J. Griffin, Oklahoma State Senator, Dist. 20, 2017 OK AG 10 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2017). · cites it 2× “" 25 O.S.2011, § 25. ¶6 In reviewing the Act, we have not located anything to suggest that construing the term "a food product" as having both singular and plural meaning is somehow plainly contrary to the intent of the Act.”
Corbeil v. Emricks Van & Storage, 2017 OK 71 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 4× “Title 25 O.S. 2011 § 25; Bd. of County Com'rs of Okla.”
Bryant v. Sagamore Ins. Co., 615 F. App'x 917 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “, dissenting) (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 25 ). The dissent argued the language of § 1101.”
Lunn v. Cont'l Motors, Inc., 2025 OK 29 (Okla. 2025). “The statute does not allow for a joint offer by a defendant to a group of plaintiffs. ¶11 CMI argues that this interpretation overlooks the legislative directive regarding the interpretation of 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.