Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 29 (2026)
Liberal construction of statutes in derogation of common
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
law. The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this state, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice. R.L.1910, § 2948.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992).
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992). “The terms of 25 O.S.1981 § 29 provide: "The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this state, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Adoption of C.D.M. v. Maxwell, 2001 OK 103 (Okla. 2001). “[10] The text of 25 O.S.1991 § 29 states: "The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this state, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Kuykendall v. Gulfstream Aerospace Tech., 2002 OK 96 (Okla. 2002). “2001 § 2 [13] and 25 O.S.2001 § 29 [14] require that statutes in derogation of the common law be liberally construed with a view to effecting their objects and to promoting justice.”
Merritt v. Merritt, 2003 OK 68 (Okla. 2003). “3d 339, 345 ; see also 25 O.S.2001 § 29. [7] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that delay on the part of the obligee in seeking to enforce child support obligations does not in any way affect his or her entitlement to those obligations.”
Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449 (Okla. 1987). “" Title 25 O.S.1981 § 29 provides: “The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this state, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Jarvis v. City of Stillwater, 669 P.2d 1108 (Okla. 1983). “1981 § 2 and 25 O.S.1981 § 29. 12 From the four corners of the Act we cannot find any indication of legislative intent to provide a political subdivision with defenses not available to others who are sued by a worker in a third-party tort action.”
State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). “" 25 O.S.2001, § 29. The constitutionality of a statute will be upheld unless it is "clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law.”
Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “, quoting 25 O.S.2001, § 29. "The constitutionality of a statute will be upheld unless it is `clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with fundamental law.”
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “25 O.S.1981 § 29; 12 O.S.1981 § 2; Roxana Petroleum Co.”
State v. Gilchrist, 2017 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). “25 O.S.2011, § 29 (Oklahoma statutes "are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Gleason v. City of Oklahoma City, 666 P.2d 786 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983). “1981 § 2 and 25 O.S.1981 § 29. There is no doubt that the wrongful death statutes were meant to compensate all of the decedent’s survivors who might claim damages through a single cause of action.”
Terry v. Edgin, 598 P.2d 228 (Okla. 1979). “” While on the other hand, our 25 O.S.1971, § 29, reads: “The rule of common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to the laws of this State, which are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to…”
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.