Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 6 (2026)

Private person or corporation - Eminent domain by

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any private person, firm or corporation shall have power to exercise the right of eminent domain in like manner as railroad companies for private ways of necessity or for agriculture, mining and sanitary purposes. R.L. 1910, § 3189.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Franks v. Tyler, 531 P.2d 1067 (Okla. Civ. App. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Franks v. Tyler, 531 P.2d 1067 (Okla. Civ. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “In the alternative they sought to condemn a way of necessity under 27 O.S.1971, § 6. After a trial to the court all relief was denied to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were enjoined from trespassing on the defendants’ property.”

Smith v. Bovaird Supply Co., 616 P.2d 1157 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 3× “See 27 O.S.1971 § 6 and Art. II § 23 of the Constitution of Oklahoma.”

Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 35× “The Childers sought a utility easement across the Arrowoods' property pursuant to 27 O.S. § 6, arguing that "private ways of necessity" within 27 O.”

Blankenship v. Bone, 530 P.2d 578 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “ROMANG, Judge: This is an eminent domain proceeding in which the plaintiff filed his petition to condemn an easement by necessity under 27 O.S.1971, § 6. The appraisers (commissioners) appointed by the court filed their report on the assessment of damages on June 4, 1973.”

Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 34× “The Childers sought a utility easement across the Arrowoods' property pursuant to 27 O.S. § 6 27 O.S. § 6 27 O.S. § 6 CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.”

Malnar v. Whitfield, 774 P.2d 1075 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989). “Appellant argues that § 23 divests an equity court of the power to refuse a mandatory injunction and that § 23 imposes absolute liability upon all forms of trespass, regardless of the circumstances.”

A+ Welding & Constr., Inc. v. Brichacek, 941 P.2d 534 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997). “Whether 27 O.S.1991 § 6 would apply to this case was not before the trial court and is not before this Court for decision.”

Witherspoon v. Ince (10th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “The Landowners, by use of three Oklahoma statutes— Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 6 ; Okla. Stat. tit.”

Childers v. Arrowood, 2023 OK 74 (Okla. 2023). “Conversely, 27 O.S § 6 authorizes landowners the ability to condemn another's property to obtain "private ways of necessity.”

Witherspoon v. Ince (W.D. Okla. 2024). · cites it 2× “II, § 23; Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 6 ; id. tit. 66, § 53).”

Pierce v. Gray (W.D. Okla. 2025). “Gray, filed a petition seeking to obtain an easement by necessity pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 27, § 6 and Okla Const. Art.”

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.