Okla. Stat. » Title 51 — OFFICERS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 163 (2026)

Venue - Parties - Real party in interest - Service of

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

process. A. Venue for actions against the state within the scope of this act shall be either the county in which the cause of action arose or Oklahoma County, except that a constitutional state agency, board or commission may, upon resolution filed with the Secretary of State, designate another situs for venue in lieu of Oklahoma County. B. Actions against all political subdivisions within the scope of this act shall be brought in the county in which the situs of the political subdivision is located or in the county in which the cause of action arose; provided, any action brought against a municipality which is an owner of a dam, based upon the construction, maintenance, or operation of the dam, shall be brought in the county where the dam or a major portion of the dam is located. C. Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought to be established. In no instance shall an employee of the state or political subdivision acting within the scope of his employment be named as defendant with the exception that suits based on the conduct of resident physicians and

interns shall be made against the individual consistent with the provisions of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes. D. All actions against the state or political subdivision shall be filed in the name of the real party or parties in interest, and in no event shall any claim be presented nor recovery be made under the right of subrogation. E. In all actions against the state, service shall be perfected by mailing, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a summons and a copy of the petition to the Attorney General. Claimant shall also mail, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the summons and a copy of the petition to the administrative head of the state agency or agencies involved and a copy of the summons and a copy of the petition to the Risk Management Administrator of the Purchasing Division of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services. F. In suits against political subdivisions the petition and summons shall be served in the manner prescribed by law for civil cases generally. If no method is prescribed by law, then service may be had on the administrative head of the political subdivision being sued, if available, and if not, the court in which the suit is pending may authorize service in such manner as may be calculated to afford the political subdivision a fair opportunity to answer and defend the suit. G. No attempt shall be made in the trial of any action brought against the state or any political subdivision or employee within the scope of this act to suggest the existence of any insurance which covers in whole or in part any judgment or award which may be rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Added by Laws 1978, c. 203, § 13, eff. July 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 226, § 14, eff. Oct. 1, 1985; Laws 1985, c. 357, § 3, operative Oct. 1, 1985; Laws 1986, c. 247, § 24, operative July 1, 1986; Laws 1999, c. 293, § 24, eff. Nov. 1, 1999; Laws 2012, c. 304, § 209. NOTE: Laws 1984, c. 228, § 6 repealed by Laws 1985, c. 357, § 5, operative Oct. 1, 1985.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Pellegrino v. State ex rel. Cameron Univ., 2003 OK 2, 63 P.3d 535.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pellegrino v. State ex rel. Cameron Univ., 2003 OK 2, 63 P.3d 535. “51 O.S.2001 § 163(C). See Parker v. City of Midwest City, 1993 OK 29, n.”
Anderson v. Eichner, 890 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1994). “The terms of 51 O.S.1991 § 163(C), which have not been amended since July 1, 1986, provide: "C.”
Wilson v. City of Tulsa, 2004 OK CIV APP 44, 91 P.3d 673. “2d 1118, 1123 ; 51 O.S.2001 § 163(C). “Scope of employment” is defined as “performance by an employee acting in good faith within the duties of the employee’s office or employment or of tasks lawfully assigned by a competent authority.”
Nail v. City of Henryetta, 911 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1996). “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 163 provides in pertinent part: ".”
Conway v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 669 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1983). “” This statute conflicts with 51 O.S.1981, § 163, which reads in part: “.”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102, 995 P.2d 1118. “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 163(C). 15 . Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — including materials outside the pleadings not excluded by the trial court — are treated as motions for summary judgment.”
Parker v. City of Midwest City, 850 P.2d 1065 (Okla. 1993). “51 O.S.1991 § 163(C) forbids suit under the Governmental Tort Claims Act against an employee acting within the scope of his employment.”
Crawford v. Osu Med. Trust, 2022 OK 25, 510 P.3d 824. · cites it 3× “2012 § 156 51 O.S.Supp.2012 § 163 See Lykins v. Saint Francis Hosp.”
Muhammad v. Hall, 674 F. App'x 810 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “And it held that the claim under the Oklahoma Constitution was precluded by the employee-immunity provision of Oklahoma’s Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 163 (C). Ms. Muhammad filed a Rule 59(e) motion, as well as a motion to amend accompanied by a…”
Phillips v. Grady Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 92 F. App'x 692 (10th Cir. 2004). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 163 (C). 5 The district court correctly entered summary judgment on these claims.”
Simington v. Parker, 2011 OK CIV APP 28, 250 P.3d 351. “; 51 O.S.2001 § 163(C). Because Simington sued DRS, which is a state agency under the GTCA, it was improper to designate Parker in her official capacity as a named defendant.”
Spencer v. Nelson, 2024 OK 63, 557 P.3d 144. “- If employees of political subdivisions are acting within the course and scope of employment, they are not to be named individually in lawsuits concerning their employment, 51 O.S. § 163 (C). Such employees have individual immunity for any act or omission within the scope of…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 163(C): 19 cases
Pellegrino v. State ex rel. Cameron Univ., 2003 OK 2, 63 P.3d 535. “51 O.S.2001 § 163(C). See Parker v. City of Midwest City, 1993 OK 29, n.”
Anderson v. Eichner, 890 P.2d 1329 (Okla. 1994). “The terms of 51 O.S.1991 § 163(C), which have not been amended since July 1, 1986, provide: "C.”
Wilson v. City of Tulsa, 2004 OK CIV APP 44, 91 P.3d 673. “2d 1118, 1123 ; 51 O.S.2001 § 163(C). “Scope of employment” is defined as “performance by an employee acting in good faith within the duties of the employee’s office or employment or of tasks lawfully assigned by a competent authority.”
Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102, 995 P.2d 1118. “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 163(C). 15 . Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — including materials outside the pleadings not excluded by the trial court — are treated as motions for summary judgment.”
Parker v. City of Midwest City, 850 P.2d 1065 (Okla. 1993). “51 O.S.1991 § 163(C) forbids suit under the Governmental Tort Claims Act against an employee acting within the scope of his employment.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 163(D): 1 case
Mariani v. State ex rel. Oklahoma State Univ., 2015 OK 13.
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.