Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 111 (2026)

Collateral attack on orders, rules and regulations -

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Appeals - Supreme Court. No collateral attack shall be allowed upon orders, rules and regulations of the Commission made hereunder, but the sole method of reviewing such orders and inquiring into and determining their validity, justness, reasonableness or correctness shall be by appeal from such orders, rules or regulations to the Supreme Court. On appeal every such order, rule or regulation shall be regarded as prima facie, valid, reasonable and just. No court of this state except the Supreme Court, and it only on appeal, as herein provided, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, annul, modify or correct any order, rule, or regulation of the Commission within the general scope of its authority herein or to enjoin, restrain or suspend execution or operation thereof, provided that writs of mandamus and prohibition shall lie from the Supreme Court to the Commission in all cases where such writs, respectively, would under like circumstances lie to any inferior court or officer. Added by Laws 1933, c. 131, p. 292, § 28, emerg. eff. April 10, 1933.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases, 1955–2020 · leading case: Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Com'n of Oklahoma, 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Forest Oil Corp. v. Corp. Com'n of Oklahoma, 807 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 4× “Forest asserts that, in issuing the order, the Corporation Commission: 1) mischaracterized the issue and allowed a collateral attack on prior Corporation Commission orders in violation of 52 O.S.1981 § 111; [31] 2) erroneously applied OCC-OGR 2-110 to establish a single…”

Tucker v. Special Energy Corp., 2008 OK 57 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 4× “Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 111 (2001); [4] James Energy Co.”

Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 655 P.2d 1040 (Okla. 1983). · cites it 3× “99111 on the following grounds: (a) the application is an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Commission Order, prohibited by 52 O.S.1981, § 111; (b) the Commission cannot interpret or construe its own orders; and (c) the Order in Cause 91429 “on its face provides…”

State Ex Rel. Commissioners of the Land Off. v. Corp. Comm'n, 590 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 2× “This Court has required change of condition in the knowledge of the formation, or the characteristics of the formation itself, to be present before the Commission modifies a prior final order.”

Kaneb Prod. Co. v. GHK Expl. Co., 769 P.2d 1388 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 3× “Otherwise the second order is a collateral attack upon the first as prohibited by 52 O.S. § 111. 1 Thus we must reverse the Commission’s order appealed from and remand the matter for further proceedings.”

Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp., 732 P.2d 438 (Okla. 1986). “and 52 O.S.1981 § 111. Section 111 provides in pertinent part: "No collateral attack shall be allowed upon orders, rules and regulations of the Commis-sion_” .”

Anson Corp. v. Hill, 841 P.2d 583 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 2× “Okla.Stat. tit. 52, § 111 (1981) provides: No collateral attack shall be allowed upon orders, rules and regulations of the commission made hereunder, but the sole method of reviewing such orders and inquiring into and determining their validity, justness, reasonableness or…”

Union Texas Petroleum, a Div. of Allied Chem. Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n, 651 P.2d 652 (Okla. 1982). “, direct their first proposition of error against the merits of the proceeding, arguing the Commission was without authority to amend its previous order inasmuch as the evidence disclosed no substantial change of conditions.”

Fent v. Oklahoma Nat. Gas, a Div. of Oneok, 898 P.2d 126 (Okla. 1994). “; 52 O.S.1991 § 111; Kaneb Production Co. v.”

Samson Resources Co. v. Corp. Comm'n, 702 P.2d 19 (Okla. 1985). “See 52 O.S.1981 §§ 111 and 113. See also, Woods Petroleum Corp.”

Turpen v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 769 P.2d 1309 (Okla. 1989). “The terms of 52 O.S.1981 § 111 provide in pertinent part: “* * * On appeal every such [Commission] order, rule or regulation shall be regarded as prima facie, valid, reasonable and just.”

Gulfstream Petroleum Corp. v. Layden, 632 P.2d 376 (Okla. 1981). “52 O.S.1971 § 111 continues: [T]he sole method of reviewing such orders and inquiring into and determining their validity, justness, reasonableness or correctness shall be by appeal from such orders, rules or regulations to the Supreme Court.”

Show all 42 citing cases →

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.