Okla. Stat. » Title 75 — STATUTES AND REPORTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 313 (2026)

Agency members not to communicate

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in an individual proceeding shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact, with any person or party, nor, in connection with any issue of law, with any party or his representative, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. An agency member (1) may communicate with other members of the agency, and (2) may have the aid and advice of one or more personal assistants. Laws 1963, c. 371, § 13.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 2× “126 (2003); Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 313 (2002); R.I. Gen.”
Hall v. Tirey, 501 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1972). · cites it 2× “Appellant charged that appellee communicated privately with the attorney for a party to a proceeding before the Board in violation of 75 O.S.1971, § 313. Appellant also charged that appellee violated 36 O.”
Wilson v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 910 P.2d 1020 (Okla. 1996). “Appellee Wilson cites 75 O.S. § 313, 75 O.S. § 316 and Opinion of the Attorney General No.”
Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). “126 (2003); Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 313 (2002); R.I. Gen.”
Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall v. Lindel Fields, 2025 OK 91 (2025). · cites it 2× “, dissenting: ¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. As resolved by the Majority Opinion, this case turns on whether the alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act should be held to have been a "willful" violation.”
Barnes v. Univ. of Oklahoma, 891 P.2d 614 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “In his final proposition, Barnes argues that Agency violated 75 O.S.1991 § 313 when it allowed a faculty member, Dr.”
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.