Okla. Stat. » Title 27 — EMINENT DOMAIN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 5 (2026)

Local governments and cemeteries - Eminent domain

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any county, city, town, township, school district, or board of education, or any board or official having charge of cemeteries created and existing under the laws of this state, shall have power to condemn lands in like manner as railroad companies, for highways, rights-of-way, building sites, cemeteries, public parks and other public purposes. R.L. 1910, § 3188.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, 136 P.3d 639.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, 136 P.3d 639. · cites it 16× “¶ 1 The issues in the present cause are as follows; (1) whether the County’s exercise of eminent domain in the instant cases is for public use in accordance with Article 2, § 23 and Article 2, § 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution and (2) whether the County’s taking for purposes of…”
Cnty. Com'rs of Muskogee Co. v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31, 136 P.3d 639. · cites it 16× “¶ 1 The issues in the present cause are as follows: (1) whether the County's exercise of eminent domain in the instant cases is for public use in accordance with Article 2, § 23 and Article 2, § 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution and (2) whether the County's taking for purposes of…”
City of Midwest City v. House of Realty, Inc., 2004 OK 56, 100 P.3d 678. · cites it 4× “¶ 7 The City argued that it could exercise a general power to condemn lands pursuant to 27 O.S.2001 § 5, 2 and that its stated purpose of economic development was a public purpose that justified the exercise of such power.”
Carter v. City of Oklahoma City, 862 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1993). “City argues that 27 O.S.1991 § 5 provides the direction for the action in the case at bar.”
Sublett v. City of Tulsa, 405 P.2d 185 (Okla. 1965). “As respects plaintiff’s argument relative to the city’s asserted lack of the power of eminent domain, it is noted that legislative grant of the power is extended to cities under these statutory provisions: 27 O.S.1961, § 5; 11 O.S.1961, § 563; 11 O.”
City of Pryor Creek v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Oklahoma, 536 P.2d 343 (Okla. 1975). “It is clear that the Legislature was aware that the general powers of eminent domain under 27 O.S.1971 § 5, 11 O.S. 1971 § 563, 670, and Art.”
Elk City v. Rice, 286 P.2d 275 (Okla. 1955). “27 O.S.1951 § 5, authorizes cities to condemn land for public purposes, and Tit.”
City of Marlow v. Booker, 2002 OK CIV APP 51, 46 P.3d 173. “27 O.S.1991 § 5. The condemnor begins the proceeding.”
Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74, 541 P.3d 825. · cites it 6× “§ 6 ¶10 In Lowery , Muskogee County initiated a condemnation proceeding pursuant to 27 O.S. § 5 Lowery , ¶¶ 1-2, 136 P.3d at 642-43.”
Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74, 541 P.3d 825. · cites it 6× “§ 5 10 for the purpose of acquiring a right-of-way easement for placement of three water pipelines, two of which would solely service a private electric generation plant, with the third pipeline servicing the residents of the rural water district not currently served.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Highways v. Marshall, 530 P.2d 1023 (Okla. 1975). “See, for instance, 27 O.S.1971, § 5 (county, city, town, etc.”
Batson v. City of Stillwater, 453 P.2d 1019 (Okla. 1969). “II, § 24, and 27 O.S.1961, § 5, the City of Still-water brought a suit in condemnation against several defendants to acquire land to be used in extending its sewer system, construct a sanitary sewage disposal plant and lines for servicing said plant and for processing and…”
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.