Okla. Stat. » Title 50 — NUISANCES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 50, § 5 (2026)

Persons liable

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every successive owner of property who neglects to abate a continuing nuisance upon, or in the use of such property, created by a former owner, is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who first created it. R.L.1910, § 4254.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007). “Okla. Stat. tit. 50, § 5 provides “[e]very successive owner of property who neglects to abate a continuing nuisance upon, or in the use of such property, created by a former owner, is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who first created it.”
Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. Jackson, 909 P.2d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The ALJ opined this Commission policy is consistent with nuisance law in 50 O.S.1991, § 5. 16 Commission Order No.”
Meinders v. Johnson, 2006 OK CIV APP 35 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 50 O.S. §§ 5, 7. Third, Plaintiff asserts that 17 O.”
N.C. Corff P'ship, Ltd. v. OXY USA, Inc., 929 P.2d 288 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “50 O.S.1991 § 5. Because of the general partners’ ultimate liability for Partnership’s liabilities, they have an interest in participating in proceedings in which those liabilities are being determined.”
B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. Okla. 2007). “Okla. Stat. tit. 50, §§ 5 , 6, 13; Meinders v.”
In Re Oklahoma Refining Co., 63 B.R. 562 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1986). “Okla.Stat. tit. 50, § 5 (1981). Its rules also require that water be free of bottom deposits, solid materials caused by chemical reactions, offensive odors and aesthetically unpleasant appearance.”
Donehue v. Apache Corp. (W.D. Okla. 2023). · cites it 4× “12, 114:1- 18; that unlined pits are the source of the groundwater contamination, Smith Report, Def.’s Ex. 23, p. 4; and that it would have been customary to conduct an environmental assessment of the area at the time Apache acquired the assets, including a review of historic…”
Blocker v. Conocophillips Co., 378 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (W.D. Okla. 2019). “50, § 5 ("Every successive owner of property who neglects to abate a continuing nuisance upon, or in the use of such property, created by a former owner, is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who first created it.")). Plaintiffs seek summary judgment that these…”
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.