Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 6-101.20 (2026)

Teacher Due Process Act of 1990 - Short title

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Sections 75 through 85 of this act shall be known and may be cited as the "Teacher Due Process Act of 1990". Added by Laws 1989, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 75, operative July 1, 1990.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1992–2017 · leading case: Hagen v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1-004, 2007 OK 19 (Okla. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hagen v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1-004, 2007 OK 19 (Okla. 2007). “TEACHER DUE PROCESS ACT OF 1990 ¶ 2 The Teacher Due Process Act of 1990, 70 O.S.2001 § 6-101.20 et. seq. provides that if a school board, after the procedure set out therein, dismisses a career teacher, it must notify the teacher of the right to petition for a trial de novo in…”

Lancaster v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 1998). “According to the plaintiff, the board denied him due process of law required by Oklahoma’s Teacher Due Process Act of 1990 (“TDPA”), Okla. Stat. tit. 70, §§ 6-101.20 -.30 (West 1998).”

Utter v. Colclazier, 714 F. App'x 872 (10th Cir. 2017). “The Teachers’ complaint included these eight claims: (I) the Defendants breached the contractual obligations set forth in the CBA; (II) the Defendants failed to comply with the Teacher Due Process Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 70, §§ 6-101.20 to .32 (TDPA); (III) the Board Members…”

Parker v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-003, 82 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 1996). “Parker claims the school district deprived her of a property right without due process when it declined to renew her contract for the 1994-95 school year in violation of the statutory scheme governing the employment of public school teachers in Oklahoma, known as the “Teacher…”

Hill v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 25 of Adair Cnty., 57 P.3d 882 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). “by: (1) failing to give her proper notice of the factual basis for its termination recommendation; (2) failing to admonish her and/or provide a reasonable amount of time for her to improve; (3) failing to give her sufficient time to respond to the charge of moral turpitude; and,…”

Babb v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-5 of Rogers Cnty., 829 P.2d 973 (Okla. 1992). “For the tenure regime that governs after July 1, 1990, see the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990, 70 O.S.1991 §§ 6-101.20 to 6-101.30. 2 . 70 O.”

In re the Non-Reemployment of Isch v. Oklahoma Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 963 P.2d 18 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998). “40, akin to the protections afforded tenured teachers under 70 O.S. § 6-101.20 et seq., which may not be disregarded by a local school board, and for the redress of which, support employees may seek review in the district court under the “final order made by any .”

Fields v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 84 P.3d 779 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). “26 of the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990, 70 O.S.2001 § 6-101.20, et seq. ¶ 13 The trial court found that School District failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it adequately complied with the requirements of the admonishment statute, 70 O.”

Harjo v. Bd. of Educ. of Ids No. 7, 1999 OK CIV APP 35 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999). “70 O.S.1991 § 6-101.20 et seq., as amended.”

Patterson v. Bd. of Educ., 894 P.2d 433 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “He alleged the acts of Board violated the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990, 70 O.S.1991 § 6-101.20 et seq. He also filed a request for production of documents for: (1) a complete copy of Vo-Teeh’s reduction in force policy; (2) a complete copy of the Oklahoma State Board of…”

Grabow v. Indep. Sch. (10th Cir. 1996). “Plaintiff first contends the district court erred in holding that Oklahoma’s Teacher Due Process Act of 1990, Okla. Stat tit. 70, §§ 6-101.20 to -101.30, does not apply to the termination of a tenured teacher pursuant to a local reduction in force policy.”

Barton v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-99, 914 P.2d 1041 (Okla. 1996). “The tenure regime that is applicable here is the Teachers Due Process Act of 1990, 70 O.S.1991 §§ 6-101.20 to 6-101.30. 10 .”

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.