Okla. Stat. » Title 71 — SECURITIES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 71, § 1-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004". Added by Laws 2003, c. 347, § 1, eff. July 1, 2004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Oklahoma Dep't of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox, 691 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oklahoma Dep't of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox, 691 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “ODS asserted claims against the Relief Defendants under the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 71 § 1-101 et seq., for unjust enrichment.”
Oklahoma Dep't of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Seabrooke Investments, LLC, 2017 OK CIV APP 42, 403 P.3d 6. “In order to reach this result, one or both, of two results must be reached; the doctrine of equitable -subrogation, is not applicable to these -facts, or, if it is a part of Oklahoma jurisprudence as an equitable remedy under the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004, 71…”
Oklahoma Dep't of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Mathews, 423 B.R. 684 (W.D. Okla. 2010). “Appellee brought a state court action pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 71 § 1-101 et. seq., alleging Appellant and others were liable for unjust enrichment as a result of the funds they received from Schubert.”
Oklahoma Dept. of Sec. ex rel. Faught v. Seabrooke Investments, LLC, 2017 OK CIV APP 42. “In order to reach this result, one or both, of two results must be reached; the doctrine of equitable subrogation is not applicable to these facts, or, if it is a part of Oklahoma jurisprudence as an equitable remedy under the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004, 71…”
Horton v. Hamilton, 2015 OK 6. · cites it 6× “71 O.S.Supp. 2003, §§ 1-101 to 1-701. Horton sought relief under the Securities Act by alleging that the defendants made an "untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact" in their offer to sell her the bond she purchased in 2007.”
Dani v. Miller, 2016 OK 35. · cites it 2× “It is not a fraudulent investment scheme being perpetrated against the citizens of Oklahoma, implicating violations of the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act, 71 O.S. §§ 1-101 to 1-701, or otherwise. The UUPA deals with unclaimed property that is presumed abandoned.”
Larson v. Lucas, No. 24-01014 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. Sept. 11, 2025). · cites it 2× “The ODS State Court Case Petition defines the “Act” to be the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004, Okla. Stat. tit. 71, §§ 1-101 through 1-701 (2023).”
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.