Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55 (2026)

Review of commissioner's report - Jury trial - Notice -

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Costs. A. The report of the commissioners may be reviewed by the district court, on written exceptions filed by either party, in the clerk’s office within thirty (30) days after the filing of such report; and the court shall make such order therein as right and justice may require, either by confirmation, rejection, or by ordering a new appraisement on good cause shown; or either party may within sixty (60) days after the filing of such report file with the clerk a written demand for a trial by jury, in which case the amount

of damages shall be assessed by a jury, and the trial shall be conducted and judgment entered in the same manner as civil actions in the district court. If the party demanding such trial does not recover a verdict more favorable to such party than the assessment of the commissioners, all costs in the district court may be taxed against such party. B. Within ten (10) days after the report of commissioners is filed, the court clerk shall forward to the attorney of record for the condemnor, the attorney of record for each condemnee, and to all unrepresented condemnees, a copy of the commissioners’ report and a notice stating the time limits for filing an exception or demand for jury trial as specified in subsection A of this section. This notice shall be on a form prepared by the Administrative Director of the Courts, which shall be approved by the Supreme Court, and shall be distributed to all clerks of the district court by the Administrative Director of the Courts. If a party has been served by publication, the clerk shall forward a copy of the report of commissioners and notice of time limits for filing an exception or demand for jury trial to the last-known mailing address, if any, and shall cause a copy of the notice of time limits to be published in one issue of a newspaper qualified to publish legal notices, as provided in Section 106 of Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes. After issuing the notices provided herein, the court clerk shall endorse on the notice form filed in the case, the date and that a copy of the report together with the notice was mailed to each party or each party’s attorney of record, or the date the notice was published in compliance with the provisions hereof. C. The time limits for filing an exception and demand for jury trial, as prescribed in subsection A of this section, shall be calculated from the date the report of the commissioners is filed in the case. On failure of the court clerk to give notice within the time prescribed in subsection B of this section, the court, on application of any party, may extend the time for filing an exception to the report or a demand for trial by jury for a period not to exceed twenty (20) days from the date the application is heard. D. If a jury trial is requested by the owner of any right, title, or interest in such real property, or by both such owner and the condemning authority, and the award of the jury exceeds the greater of the award of the court-appointed commissioners or the last timely written offer of just compensation made by the condemning authority by at least ten percent (10%), then the owner of any right, title, or interest in the property involved may be paid such sum as in the opinion of the court will reimburse such owner for his or her reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and expert witness fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings. Such determination by the court shall be

appealable to the Supreme Court in the same manner as any other final order. The written offer of just compensation will be considered timely for purposes of this subsection if it is made at any time prior to seventy-five (75) days after the report of the court-appointed commissioners is filed. The sum awarded shall be paid by the party instituting the condemnation proceedings. E. If the final judgment is that the real property cannot be acquired by condemnation, if the party instituting the proceeding abandons such proceeding, or if a jury trial is requested only by the condemning authority, and the award of the jury exceeds ninety percent (90%) of the greater of the award of the court-appointed commissioners or the last written offer of just compensation made by the condemning authority, the owner of any right, title, or interest in such real property may be paid such sum as in the opinion of the court will reimburse such owner for his or her reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings. Such determination by the court shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the same manner as any other final order. The written offer of just compensation will be considered timely for purposes of this subsection if it is made at any time prior to seventy-five (75) days after the report of the court-appointed commissioners is filed. The sum awarded shall be paid by the party instituting the condemnation proceedings. R.L. 1910, § 1402. Amended by Laws 1961, p. 497, § 1; Laws 1970, c. 322, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1971; Laws 1980, c. 195, § 1, emerg. eff. May 12, 1980; Laws 2025, c. 255, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Lowery, 136 P.3d 639 (Okla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Lowery, 136 P.3d 639 (Okla. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 5 and 66 O.S.2001 § 55. County subsequently filed its Objection to Assessment of Attorney’s Fees, arguing that Landowners have incurred no actual attorney fees and expenses in this condemnation proceeding because the Landowners’ cost of defense was “defrayed from the land…”

Carter v. City of Oklahoma City, 862 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 5× “1991 § 12 or 66 O.S.1991 § 55 controls in an inverse condemnation action.”

Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. New Life Pentecostal Church of Jenks, 870 P.2d 762 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 6× “1991 §§ 9, 11), 3 expert witness fees (66 O.S.1991 §§ 55, 57) 4 and of court costs (66 O.”

Root v. KAMO Elec. Coop., Inc., 699 P.2d 1083 (Okla. 1985). · cites it 5× “Appellant’s final proposition of error challenges the trial court’s award of attorney fees and litigation expenses under the provisions of 66 O.S.1981, § 55(D), which provides: Where the party instituting a condemnation proceeding abandons such proceeding, or where the final…”

Williams v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 2000 OK CIV APP 19 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “¶ 10 The trial court agreed with the Williams. ODOT moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.”

Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 808 P.2d 640 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 4× “" [22] See 66 O.S.1961 § 55. [23] See 69 O.S.Supp.1970 § 1203.”

Atwood v. Atwood, 2001 OK CIV APP 48 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “[16] 66 O.S.1991, § 55(D). The Surface Damages Act directs that cases under that Act are conducted as cases under condemnation, but the Act did not specifically authorize recovery of expert witness fees when it authorized recovery of all court costs including reasonable attorney…”

Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Creek Cnty. v. Casteel, 522 P.2d 608 (Okla. 1974). · cites it 5× “For benefit of Bench and Bar in future proceedings, on October 8, 1971, in conformity with the terms of 66 O.S.Supp. 1970, § 55, 69 O.S.Supp. 1970, § 1203, as Amended by S.”

Cnty. Com'rs of Muskogee Co. v. Lowery, 2006 OK 31 (Okla. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 5 and 66 O.S.2001 § 55. County subsequently filed its Objection to Assessment of Attorney's Fees, arguing that Landowners have incurred no actual attorney fees and expenses in this condemnation proceeding because the Landowners' cost of defense was "defrayed from the land…”

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Cole, 2009 OK 40 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 5× “66 O.S.2001, § 55(A); 69 O.S.2001, § 1203(e)(1).”

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Perdue, 2008 OK 103 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 2× “Title 66 O.S.2001 § 55(A), see note 2, supra; 69 O.”

TXO Prod. Corp. v. Stanton, 847 P.2d 821 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “This section provides that costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against a party demanding a jury trial when the party fails to recover a verdict more favorable than the award of appraisers. Landowner acknowledges the limited application of § 318.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55(A) — 6 cases

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Perdue, 2008 OK 103 (Okla. 2008). “Title 66 O.S.2001 § 55(A), see note 2, supra; 69 O.”

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Cole, 2009 OK 40 (Okla. 2009). “66 O.S.2001, § 55(A); 69 O.S.2001, § 1203(e)(1).”

Williams v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 2000 OK CIV APP 19 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000). “¶ 10 The trial court agreed with the Williams. ODOT moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.”

State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Moss, 602 P.2d 638 (Okla. 1979).

City of Marlow v. Booker, 46 P.3d 173 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55(C) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Cole, 2009 OK 40 (Okla. 2009). “66 O.S.2001, § 55(A); 69 O.S.2001, § 1203(e)(1).”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 66, § 55(D) — 15 cases

Root v. KAMO Elec. Coop., Inc., 699 P.2d 1083 (Okla. 1985). “Appellant’s final proposition of error challenges the trial court’s award of attorney fees and litigation expenses under the provisions of 66 O.S.1981, § 55(D), which provides: Where the party instituting a condemnation proceeding abandons such proceeding, or where the final…”

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Lowery, 136 P.3d 639 (Okla. 2006). “§ 5 and 66 O.S.2001 § 55. County subsequently filed its Objection to Assessment of Attorney’s Fees, arguing that Landowners have incurred no actual attorney fees and expenses in this condemnation proceeding because the Landowners’ cost of defense was “defrayed from the land…”

Atwood v. Atwood, 2001 OK CIV APP 48 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001). “[16] 66 O.S.1991, § 55(D). The Surface Damages Act directs that cases under that Act are conducted as cases under condemnation, but the Act did not specifically authorize recovery of expert witness fees when it authorized recovery of all court costs including reasonable attorney…”

Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. New Life Pentecostal Church of Jenks, 870 P.2d 762 (Okla. 1994). “1991 §§ 9, 11), 3 expert witness fees (66 O.S.1991 §§ 55, 57) 4 and of court costs (66 O.”

TXO Prod. Corp. v. Stanton, 847 P.2d 821 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). “This section provides that costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against a party demanding a jury trial when the party fails to recover a verdict more favorable than the award of appraisers. Landowner acknowledges the limited application of § 318.”

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.