Okla. Stat. » Title 60 — PROPERTY
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 333 (2026)

Prescription, title by

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

Occupancy for the period prescribed by civil procedure, or any law of this state as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all. R.L.1910, § 6748.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1952–2001 · leading case: MacY v. Oklahoma City Sch. Dist. No. 89, 1998 OK 58, 961 P.2d 804.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacY v. Oklahoma City Sch. Dist. No. 89, 1998 OK 58, 961 P.2d 804. · cites it 15× “II ¶ 4 THE ROMAN-LAW CONCEPT OF PRESCRIPTION—EMBODIED IN THE TEXT OF 60 O.S.1991 § 333 [2] —CONFERS UPON THE DISTRICT UNASSAILABLE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS IN THE ANNEXED ARCADIAN TERRITORY IN DISPUTE HERE The District qua Territorial Entity ¶ 5 A school district is a territorial…”
United States ex rel. Farmers Home Admin. v. Reed, 921 P.2d 338 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 4× “The provisions of § 93, when read in conjunction with those of 60 O.S.1991 § 333 [6] not only bar the dispossessed person's remedy but also confer upon the occupant title to the premises by prescription.”
Krosmico v. Pettit, 1998 OK 90, 968 P.2d 345. · cites it 2× “1991 § 333 states: Occupancy for the period prescribed by civil procedure, or any law of this state as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all.”
Mobbs v. City of Lehigh, 655 P.2d 547 (Okla. 1982). “In Oklahoma, after the owner’s remedy is barred, title by prescription may be conferred upon the occupant by 60 O.S.1981 § 333. . Common-law limitations, unlike the Roman law’s “prescription”, typically operate to bar the owner’s “remedy”, not his “right”.”
Matter of Est. of Speake, 743 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1987). “563 , 567-570 [1930], the court recognized that the provisions of 60 O.S.1981 § 333, which confer title by prescription upon one who has occupied land adversely for the prescriptive period, abrogate the common law.”
Francis v. Rogers, 2001 OK 111, 40 P.3d 481. “" Title 60 O.S.1991 § 333 provides: "Occupancy for the period prescribed by civil procedure, or any law of this state as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all.”
Ellis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 450 F. Supp. 412 (E.D. Okla. 1978). “60 O.S. § 333 provides as follows: Occupancy for the period prescribed by civil procedure, or any law of this State as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all.”
Williams v. Bailey, 268 P.2d 868 (Okla. 1954). “60 O.S.1951 § 333, provides: “Occupancy for the period prescribed by civil procedure, or any law of this State as sufficient to bar an action for the recovery of the property, confers a title thereto, denominated a title by prescription, which is sufficient against all.”
Russell v. Williams, 1998 OK CIV APP 135, 964 P.2d 231. “This argument is erroneous. It is true that the statute of limitations for trespass to land is two years.”
Morris v. Wells, 381 P.2d 882 (Okla. 1963). · cites it 2× “1961 § 93(3, 4) and 60 O.S.1961 § 333, will not apply in favor of an agent or trustee who secures possession of real property by virtue of his agency ■or trust relationship and thereafter secures a tax deed in his own name against his principal or beneficiary, until the…”
Fadem v. Kimball, 612 P.2d 287 (Okla. Civ. App. 1980). “60 O.S.1971 § 333. The record supports Kimballs’ argument of possession that was openly and peacefully hostile to true title (in the sense of being nonpermissive).”
Sears v. Fair, 397 P.2d 134 (Okla. 1964). “Defendants’ second proposition is that the Commissioners held legal title to the realty involved herein as public property; and title thereto could not be acquired under 60 O.S.1961, § 333. Our determination of the second proposition in defendants’ favor is decisive and makes it…”
Show all 26 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.