Okla. Stat. » Title 32 — HUSBAND AND WIFE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 32, § 15 (2026)

Renumbered as § 214 of Title 43 by Laws 1989, c. 333, § 2,

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

eff. Nov. 1, 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1967–1991 · leading case: Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 588 (Okla. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 588 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 4× “" The separate legal identity of husband and wife has been recognized in Oklahoma since statehood [8] There is no question that, under the provisions of 32 O.S.Supp. 1973 § 15, the wife has the right to sue and be sued in her own name.”
Williams v. Hook, 804 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “The same right is guaranteed to a wife by 32 O.S.1981 § 15 providing in pertinent part: "Woman shall retain the same legal existence and legal personality after marriage as before marriage, and shall receive the same protection of all her rights as a woman, which her husband…”
Karriman v. Orthopedic Clinic, 488 P.2d 1250 (Okla. 1971). · cites it 3× “1961 § 29; and 32 O.S.1961 § 15 it was unnecessary for our legislature to expressly authorize a wife to sue a third person for negligently injuring her husband.”
Rios v. Nicor Drilling Co., 665 P.2d 1183 (Okla. 1983). “The wife’s action has now been recognized in Oklahoma by the enactment of 32 O.S.1981 § 15. 5 . See 85 O.S.1981 § 22 which provides for the schedule of compensation to injured workers.”
Catron v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 434 P.2d 263 (Okla. 1967). “Next the plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations should not run in favor of a husband against a wife for “all she (plaintiff) could have done was sue him for a divorce.”
Hale v. Hale, 426 P.2d 681 (Okla. 1967). “Wc agree that our Legislature has provided that married women shall have the same protection of their rights, including access to the courts, as possessed by men.”
Lee v. Cotten, 793 P.2d 1369 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “32 O.S.1981 § 15, now see, 43 O.S.Supp.1989 § 214; see also, e.”
In Re Starr, 101 B.R. 274 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1988). “Okla.Stat. tit. 32, § 15 (1978). Debtor’s consortium action, though derivative, is founded on “a personal bodily injury” action.”
Ziegelgruber v. Harrison ex rel. Harrison, 738 P.2d 964 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “Married women may devise their separate property without consent of their husbands. Okla.Stat. tit. 84, § 42 (1981).”
Matter of Est. of Harrison, 738 P.2d 964 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “Married women may devise their separate property without consent of their husbands. Okla. Stat. tit. 84, § 42 (1981). Married women cannot be discriminated against in the pursuit of credit.”
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.