Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 71, § 1 (2026)
Repealed by Laws 2003, c. 347, § 53, eff. July 1, 2004
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Repealed by Laws 2003, c. 347, § 53, eff. July 1, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Polymer Fabricating, Inc. v. Employers Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 1998 OK 113, 980 P.2d 109.
Polymer Fabricating, Inc. v. Employers Workers' Comp. Ass'n, 1998 OK 113, 980 P.2d 109. “71 O.S.1991 §§ 1 et seq. 12 . See supra note 8.”
Marley v. Cannon, 618 P.2d 401 (Okla. 1980). “After receiving complaints in regard to alleged violations by appellees of the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S.1971, § 1 et seq. (Act), the Administrator conducted a private investigation of their business activities pursuant to section 405(a) of the Act.”
Perry v. Meek, 618 P.2d 934 (Okla. 1980). “The third cause of action seeks redress for violations of the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S. § 1, et seq., and pleads specific instances of such violations.”
Hall v. Edge, 782 P.2d 122 (Okla. 1989). “71 O.S.1981 § 1 et seq. Although he refers to this case as a "simple security fraud case” in his petition for certiorari, his failure to argue this issue with relevant authority on certiorari waives it for our review.”
Lambrecht v. Bartlett, 656 P.2d 269 (Okla. 1982). “This state’s version of such a law is embodied in the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S.1981 § 1 et seq. Found in 71 O.S.1981 § 2(20) is a definition of “security” which states in part: “ ‘Security’ means any: .”
State ex rel. Day v. Sw. Mineral Energy, Inc., 617 P.2d 1334 (Okla. 1980). “§ 78a through 78kk], the Oklahoma Securities Act [71 O.S. §§ 1 through 504] does not contain a provision similar to 15 U.”
Freeman v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 856 P.2d 592 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “Appellee alleged each of the units constituted a security within the meaning of the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S.1991 § 1 et seq. Appellee alleged the offers and sales were made by means of material misrepresentations and omissions of fact in violation of 71 O.”
Nikkel v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 542 P.2d 1305 (Okla. 1975). “The judgment of the trial court found the five sales of Mayflower stock was in violation of the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S.1971 § 1 et seq. for the Mayflower stock was unregistered and non-exempt.”
Roby v. Day, 635 P.2d 611 (Okla. 1981). “” Based thereon, defendant expressed his intent to issue an order denying the effectiveness of such a registration pursuant to § 306 of the Oklahoma Securities Act, Title 71 O.S.1971, § 1 et seq. Plaintiff seeks a finding and declaratory judgment that the purpose of the…”
Wilson v. Al McCord Inc., 611 F. Supp. 621 (W.D. Okla. 1985). “The Plaintiffs urge therein that the Court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in their favor on their claims for sale of an unregistered security, as proscribed by Oklahoma “Blue Sky” law, 71 O.S.1981 § 1 — § 703. See 71 O.S. 1981 § 408(a)(1).”
Berry v. Pentecost, Jr., No. 20-01039 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. Dec. 30, 2021). “Pentecost and his company were registered investment advisers under the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004, 71 O.S. §§ 1- 101 through 1-701 (the “Act”), and therefore were bound to comply with the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Howell v. Ballard, 801 P.2d 127 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “Tate, Ballard and Tate-Page Enterprises (Appellants) on the grounds that the business *128 interest sold to Appellee by Appellants constituted an unregistered security under the Oklahoma Securities Act, 71 O.S.1981 § 1, et seq. Appellee filed motion for summary judgment claiming…”
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.