Okla. Stat. » Title 62 — PUBLIC FINANCE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 62, § 479 (2026)

Incurring indebtedness or allowing bills in excess -

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

Liability of officers. A. It shall be unlawful for the board of county commissioners, the county purchasing agent, the city council or the commissioners of any city, the trustees of any town, township board, or any member or members of the aforesaid commissioners, or of any of the above- named boards, to willfully or knowingly make any contract for, incur, acknowledge, approve, allow or authorize any indebtedness against their respective city, town or county or authorize it to be done by others, in excess of the estimate made and approved by the excise board for such purpose for the current fiscal year, or in excess of the specific amount authorized for such purpose by a bond issue. B. Any such indebtedness, contracted, incurred, acknowledged, approved, allowed or authorized in excess of the estimate made and approved for such purposes for the current fiscal year or in excess of the specific amount authorized for such purpose by a bond issue, shall not be a charge against the city, town or county whose officer or officers contracted, incurred, acknowledged, approved, allowed or authorized or attested the evidence of said indebtedness, but may be collected by civil action from any official willfully or knowingly contracting, incurring, acknowledging, approving or authorizing or attesting to the indebtedness, or from the bondsmen of the official.

Added by Laws 1910-11, c. 80, p. 183, § 9. Amended by Laws 1982, c. 249, § 15; Laws 1991, c. 236, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1997, c. 88, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1997; Laws 2004, c. 361, § 10, eff. July 1, 2004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1964–2002 · leading case: State ex rel. Howard v. Crawford, 2000 OK CIV APP 142, 16 P.3d 473.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Howard v. Crawford, 2000 OK CIV APP 142, 16 P.3d 473. · cites it 4× “She also claims District's work on the projects included within those propositions violate Article 10, § 16 and § 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 62 O.S.Supp.1997 § 479. 2 Her petition requested an accounting from District concerning these projects, an injunction requiring…”
S. Corr. Sys. Inc. v. Union City Pub. Schs., 2002 OK 93, 64 P.3d 1083. “Title 62 O.S.2001 § 479 provides in pertinent part: "A.”
Town of Mannford v. Watson, 394 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1964). “, 62 O.S.1961 §§ 479, 480, and 485, and numerous decisions from this court.”
Carmichael v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 475 P.2d 387 (Okla. 1970). “Under this cited case, all such expenditures are unauthorized under 62 O.S.1961, Section 479 (C.O.S. 1921, Sec.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 62, § 479(A): 1 case
State ex rel. Howard v. Crawford, 2000 OK CIV APP 142, 16 P.3d 473. “She also claims District's work on the projects included within those propositions violate Article 10, § 16 and § 19 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 62 O.S.Supp.1997 § 479. 2 Her petition requested an accounting from District concerning these projects, an injunction requiring…”
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.