Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 50, § 10 (2026)

Civil action

✓ current as of July 2026

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

A private person may maintain an action for a public nuisance if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise. R.L.1910, § 4259.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Smicklas v. Spitz, 846 P.2d 362 (Okla. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smicklas v. Spitz, 846 P.2d 362 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to 50 O.S.1991 § 10, 3 an individual may maintain an action to abate a public nuisance only if it is specifically personally injurious; 2) An instruction on the rights of riparian land owners containing no limiting language concerning actions that may be taken to…”

N.C. Corff P'ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “50 O.S.1991 § 10. Finally, in the trial court, OXY asserted Plaintiffs could not prove a claim of constructive fraud because Oklahoma law requires that the parties to such a claim have a confidential or fiduciary relationship.”

The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (N.D. Okla. 2009). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 50, §§ 10 , 11. The Tribe’s argument concerning Oklahoma public nuisance law misses the mark and does not address the mining defendants’ argument that the Tribe is attempting to assert claims belonging to the individual landowners.”

Tosco Corp. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 216 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2000). “Finally, we agree with the District Court Tosco adequately proved it suffered a “special injury” sufficient to maintain a *896 cause of action under Okla. Stat. tit. 50, § 10 by establishing it has borne the entire cost of investigation and remediation at the Refinery.”

Melton v. Univ. of Oklahoma (W.D. Okla. 2021). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 50, § 10 . 5. Intentional Interference with Contract To establish a claim for tortious interference with contract under Oklahoma law, Plaintiff must prove that “(1) the interference was with an existing contractual .”

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.