A. A person may not initiate a suit against the state or a political subdivision unless the claim has been denied in whole or in part. A claim is deemed denied if the state or political subdivision fails to approve the claim in its entirety within ninety (90) days, unless the state or political subdivision has denied the claim or reached a settlement with the claimant before the expiration of that period. If the state or a political subdivision approves or denies the claim in ninety (90) days or less, the state or political subdivision shall give notice within five (5) days of such action to the claimant at the address listed in the claim. If the state or political subdivision fails to give the notice required by this subsection, the period for commencement of an action in subsection B of this section shall not begin until the expiration of the ninety-day period for approval. The claimant and the state or political subdivision may continue attempts to settle a claim, however, settlement negotiations do not extend the date of denial unless agreed to in writing by the claimant and the state or political subdivision. B. No action for any cause arising under this act, Section 151 et seq. of this title, shall be maintained unless valid notice has been given and the action is commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days after denial of the claim as set forth in this section. The claimant and the state or political subdivision may agree in writing to extend the time to commence an action for the purpose of continuing to attempt settlement of the claim except no such
extension shall be for longer than two (2) years from the date of the loss. Added by Laws 1978, c. 203, § 7, eff. July 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 226, § 9, eff. Oct. 1, 1985; Laws 1988, c. 241, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 1989, c. 25, § 1, emerg. eff. March 30, 1989; Laws 1994, c. 374, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Laws 1995, c. 121, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. NOTE: Laws 1984, c. 228, § 5 repealed by Laws 1985, c. 357, § 5, operative Oct. 1, 1985.
Notes of Decisions
I. T. K. v. Mounds Pub. Schs., 2019 OK 59 (Okla. 2019).
· cites it 42× “§ 157(B) 180-day period to commence suit, when the request stated it would not extend or waive time limits; and (3) A plaintiff's letter unilaterally seeking settlement negotiations is not, as a matter of law, sufficient by itself to show an agreement pursuant to 51 O.S. § 157…”
Bivins v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Mem'l Hosp., 917 P.2d 456 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 10× “[21] According to OMH, (a) its request for more information had absolutely no legal effect upon the length of the 90-day bar prescribed by 51 O.S.1991 § 157(A) [22] for consideration of the claim undisturbed by litigation, (b) the statutory bar of suit, which started to run when…”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102 (Okla. 2000).
· cites it 15× “¶ 2 Two issues are presented in this cause which is governed by the Governmental Tort Claims Act: 1) whether a petition filed within 180 days of a governmental entity’s affirmative representation of the date of denial was timely under 51 O.S.Supp.1995 § 157; 1 and 2) whether…”
Cruse v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 910 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, relying upon 51 O.S.1991, §§ 157 and 170 and Johns v. Wynnewood School Board of Education, 656 P.”
Whitley v. Oologah Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-4 of Rogers Cnty., 741 P.2d 455 (Okla. 1987).
· cites it 6× “Likewise, the requisite basis for denial of a claim by a political subdivision is explained in 51 O.S.1981 § 157: Within ninety (90) days after receiving the filing of a claim, the clerk of the political subdivision shall notify the claimant in writing of the approval or denial…”
Duncan v. City of Nichols Hills, 913 P.2d 1303 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 4× “On January 26, 1994, the City filed a motion to dismiss based on Duncan’s alleged failure to comply with notice of claim provisions contained in the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1991, § 157. The notice of claims provisions provides that a tort claim will be deemed denied…”
Mansell v. City of Lawton, 901 P.2d 826 (Okla. 1995).
· cites it 7× “9 The City counters that the owner’s notice of claim is invalid under § 156(E) because: 1) it was deficient and inadequate; and 2) his refusal to provide additional information within the 90-day period of 51 O.S.1991 § 157, 10 resulted in his claim being untimely.”
Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the action against the State was barred by the running of the 180-day time limitation in 51 O.S.1991, § 157 and that Hollingsworth is immune from liability for negligence occurring in the…”
Vaughan v. City of Broken Arrow, 1999 OK 47 (Okla. 1999).
· cites it 5× “Therefore, the City maintained, the claim was time barred under 51 O.S. § 157. ¶ 5 Vaughan filed the instant action in the District Court of Tulsa County on April 17, 1996.”
Pellegrino v. State, Ex Rel. Cameron Univ., Ex Rel. Bd. of Regents, 2003 OK 2 (Okla. 2003).
“The claimant and the state or political subdivision may agree in writing to extend the time to commence an action for the purpose of continuing to attempt settlement of the claim except no such extension shall be for longer than two (2) years from the date of the loss.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(A) — 27 cases
Bivins v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Mem'l Hosp., 917 P.2d 456 (Okla. 1996).
“[21] According to OMH, (a) its request for more information had absolutely no legal effect upon the length of the 90-day bar prescribed by 51 O.S.1991 § 157(A) [22] for consideration of the claim undisturbed by litigation, (b) the statutory bar of suit, which started to run when…”
I. T. K. v. Mounds Pub. Schs., 2019 OK 59 (Okla. 2019).
“§ 157(B) 180-day period to commence suit, when the request stated it would not extend or waive time limits; and (3) A plaintiff's letter unilaterally seeking settlement negotiations is not, as a matter of law, sufficient by itself to show an agreement pursuant to 51 O.S. § 157…”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102 (Okla. 2000).
“¶ 2 Two issues are presented in this cause which is governed by the Governmental Tort Claims Act: 1) whether a petition filed within 180 days of a governmental entity’s affirmative representation of the date of denial was timely under 51 O.S.Supp.1995 § 157; 1 and 2) whether…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(A)(B) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(B) — 31 cases
I. T. K. v. Mounds Pub. Schs., 2019 OK 59 (Okla. 2019).
“§ 157(B) 180-day period to commence suit, when the request stated it would not extend or waive time limits; and (3) A plaintiff's letter unilaterally seeking settlement negotiations is not, as a matter of law, sufficient by itself to show an agreement pursuant to 51 O.S. § 157…”
Cruse v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 910 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1995).
“The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, relying upon 51 O.S.1991, §§ 157 and 170 and Johns v. Wynnewood School Board of Education, 656 P.”
Bivins v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Mem'l Hosp., 917 P.2d 456 (Okla. 1996).
“[21] According to OMH, (a) its request for more information had absolutely no legal effect upon the length of the 90-day bar prescribed by 51 O.S.1991 § 157(A) [22] for consideration of the claim undisturbed by litigation, (b) the statutory bar of suit, which started to run when…”
Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996).
“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the action against the State was barred by the running of the 180-day time limitation in 51 O.S.1991, § 157 and that Hollingsworth is immune from liability for negligence occurring in the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(E) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(a) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 157(b) — 1 case
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.