In the construction of the statutes of this state, the following rules shall be observed: 1. For any act enacted on or after July 1, 1989, unless there is a provision in the act that the act or any portion thereof or the application of the act shall not be severable, the provisions of every act or application of the act shall be severable. If any provision or application of the act is found to be unconstitutional and void, the remaining provisions or applications of the act shall remain valid, unless the court finds: a. the valid provisions or application of the act are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the void provisions that the court
cannot presume the Legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or b. the remaining valid provisions or applications of the act, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent. 2. For acts enacted prior to July 1, 1989, whether or not such acts were enacted with an express provision for severability, it is the intent of the Oklahoma Legislature that the act or any portion of the act or application of the act shall be severable unless: a. the construction of the provisions or application of the act would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature; b. the court finds the valid provisions of the act are so essentially and inseparably connected with and so dependent upon the void provisions that the court cannot presume the Legislature would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or c. the court finds the remaining valid provisions standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent. Added by Laws 1989, c. 154, § 1, operative July 1, 1989.
Notes of Decisions
Local 514 Transp. Workers Union v. Keating, 2003 OK 110 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 14× “[11] Considerations relevant to severability analysis are outlined in the provisions of 75 O.S.2001 § 11a. [12] ¶ 6 Survival of remaining statutory provisions is appropriate when the valid and voided (as unconstitutional) provisions are not so "inseparably connected with and so…”
Hunsucker v. Fallin, 2017 OK 100 (Okla. 2017).
· cites it 4× “The Act does not contain a severability clause, but 75 O.S.2011 § 11a 51 requires a severability analysis.”
Local 514 Transp. Workers Union v. Keating, 358 F.3d 743 (10th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 7× “…court concluded that the core provisions of article XXIII, § 1A were contained in § 1A(B)(1)-(4) and, applying Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 11a and its presumption of severability, further concluded that the invalidation of § 1A(B)(5) and § 1A(C) would not hinder the…”
Liddell v. Heavner, 2008 OK 6 (Okla. 2008).
· cites it 3× “" [50] Considerations relevant to a severability analysis are outlined in the provisions of 75 O.S.2001 § 11a, the pertinent terms of which are: "In the construction of the statutes of this state, the following rules shall be observed: 1.”
Local 514 Transp. Workers Union v. Keating, 66 F. App'x 768 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 7× “…court concluded that the core provisions of article XXIII, § 1A were contained in § lA(B)(l)-(4) and, applying Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 11a and its presumption of severability, further concluded that the invalidation of § 1A(B)(5) and § 1A(C) would not hinder the enforce…”
Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc., 441 P.3d 1107 (Okla. 2019).
· cites it 2× “For any act enacted on or after July 1, 1989, unless there is a provision in the act that the act or any portion thereof or the application of the act shall not be severable, the provisions of every act or application of the act shall be severable. If any provision or…”
Local 514, Transp. Workers of Am. v. Keating, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (E.D. Okla. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The Court did, however, uphold several provisions as within the legislature’s authority after concluding that they were not in conflict with the Ethics Commission’s authority.”
Conaghan v. Riverfield Country Day Sch., 2007 OK 60 (Okla. 2007).
“Our view is consistent with the general legislative directive in 75 O.S.2001, § 11a that if any part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall be valid.”
Ethics Comm'n v. Cullison, 850 P.2d 1069 (Okla. 1993).
“29 § 6‘ Before discussing the remaining sections of the Joint Resolution we must discuss the severability of the various non-offending sections.”
White & Waddell v. Stitt, 2025 OK 68 (Okla. 2025).
· cites it 4× “632 ¶ 29 Although the Act does not contain a severability clause, 75 O.S. § 11a ¶30 Petitioners ¶31 But we do not have to parse through the Act hunting for constitutionally sound provisions to know that it is incapable of being enforced to its drafters' intent.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 11a(1) — 4 cases
Local 514 Transp. Workers Union v. Keating, 2003 OK 110 (Okla. 2003).
“[11] Considerations relevant to severability analysis are outlined in the provisions of 75 O.S.2001 § 11a. [12] ¶ 6 Survival of remaining statutory provisions is appropriate when the valid and voided (as unconstitutional) provisions are not so "inseparably connected with and so…”
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.