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

Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318 (2026)

Judicial review

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

A. 1. Any party aggrieved by a final agency order in an individual proceeding is entitled to certain, speedy, adequate, and complete judicial review thereof pursuant to the provisions of this section and Sections 319, 320, 321, 322, and 323 of this title. 2. This section shall not prevent resort to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo, available because of constitutional provisions. 3. Neither a motion for new trial nor an application for rehearing shall be prerequisite to secure judicial review. 4. A claim under the Administrative Procedures Act accrues when any plaintiff properly joined in the action has the right to assert the claim in court, which at the earliest shall be the date the party is aggrieved by final agency action. B. 1. The judicial review prescribed by this section for final agency orders, as to agencies whose final agency orders are made subject to review, under constitutional or statutory provisions, by appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court, shall be afforded by such proceedings taken in accordance with the procedure and under the conditions otherwise provided by law, but subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 250.5 and 319 through 323 of this title, and the rules of the Supreme Court. 2. In all other instances, proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition, in the district court of the county in which the party seeking review resides or at the option of such party where the property interest affected is situated, naming as respondents only the agency, such other party or parties in the administrative proceeding as may be named by the petitioner or as otherwise may be allowed by law, within thirty (30) days after the appellant is notified of the final agency order as provided in Section 312 of this title. C. Copies of the petition shall be delivered in person or mailed, postage prepaid, to the agency and all other parties of record, and proof of such delivery or mailing shall be filed in the court within ten (10) days after the filing of the petition. Any party not named as a respondent in the petition is entitled to respond within ten (10) days of receipt of service. The court, in its discretion, may permit other interested persons to intervene. D. In any proceedings for review brought by a party aggrieved by a final agency order: 1. The agency whose final agency order was made subject to review may be entitled to recover against such aggrieved party any court costs, witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees if the court

determines that the proceeding brought by the party is frivolous or was brought to delay the effect of the final agency order. 2. The party aggrieved by the final agency order may be entitled to recover against such agency any court costs, witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees if the court determines that the proceeding brought by the agency is frivolous. E. In the interpretation of a state statute, administrative rule, or other regulation, the reviewing court or officer hearing an administrative action shall not defer to the interpretation of a state agency and shall interpret the meaning and effect de novo. In an action brought by or against a state agency, after applying all customary tools of interpretation, the court or hearing officer shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation which limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. Added by Laws 1963, c. 371, § 18. Amended by Laws 1977, c. 114, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1977; Laws 1992, c. 310, § 14, eff. July 1, 1992; Laws 2011, c. 189, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2011; Laws 2025, c. 259, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Dewey v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys., 2001 OK 40, 28 P.3d 539.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dewey v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys., 2001 OK 40, 28 P.3d 539. · cites it 8× “[12] Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.1991 § 318 A(1) & B(2). [13] See infra note for the pertinent terms of 75 O.”
Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enf't Comm'n, 764 P.2d 172 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 3× “20 A related reason why we believe the District Court had no jurisdiction of this matter is that the March 20, 1986 decision of the Director was not a final order subject to appeal under 75 O.S.1981, § 318. The District Court ruled on this issue as follows: “[Tjhat the Order…”
Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 4× “If that individual proceedings’ order was then adverse to them, they could then appeal it pursuant to 75 O.S.1971, § 318. As presented, the issue of the validity of the adopted rules is not properly before this Court.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Pinaroc, 2002 OK 20, 46 P.3d 114. · cites it 4× “75 O.S.Supp.1992 § 318: § 318. Judicial review.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-20 of Muskogee Cnty. v. Oklahoma State Dep't of Educ., 2003 OK 18, 65 P.3d 612. · cites it 3× “Title 75 O.S.2001 § 318 provides in pertinent part: "A.”
Toxic Waste Impact Grp., Inc. v. Leavitt, 890 P.2d 906 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “(ESI) by appellant, Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) in a judicial review proceeding under 75 O.S.1981, § 318 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.”
Martin v. Harrah Indep. Sch. Dist., 543 P.2d 1370 (Okla. 1975). · cites it 4× “We do not believe this language permits simultaneous resort to the courts for a writ of mandamus and to the administrative agency for the following reasons: (1) Although the power to issue a writ of mandamus by appellate courts under Art.”
Klopfenstein v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 OK CIV APP 16, 177 P.3d 594. · cites it 2× “For these reasons, we find that Appellant complied with the requirements of 75 O.S.2001 § 318, and that the trial court’s dismissal on that basis was error.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, 100 P.3d 707. “For purposes of the procedure governing judicial review in both the 1971 administrative procedures statutes and in the OAPA, the decision reviewable is either "a final order in an individual proceeding,” 75 O.”
Purcell v. Parker, 2020 OK 83, 475 P.3d 834. · cites it 2× “7 Title 75 O.S. 2011 §318 provides: A. 1. Any party aggrieved by a final agency order in an individual proceeding is entitled to certain, speedy, adequate and complete judicial review thereof pursuant to the provisions of this section and Sections 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323 of…”
Stipe v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs., 2008 OK 52, 188 P.3d 120. · cites it 2× “STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 7 The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPC), 75 O.S.2001 § 318 et seq., governs our review.”
Stewart v. Rood, 796 P.2d 321 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 2× “In this regard, they argue entitlement, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, to the protections of the OAPA, with all its procedural safeguards, including an appeal under 75 O.S.1981, § 318 to a state district court to challenge the correctness of the ODH decision,…”
Show all 88 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(1): 5 cases
Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982). “If that individual proceedings’ order was then adverse to them, they could then appeal it pursuant to 75 O.S.1971, § 318. As presented, the issue of the validity of the adopted rules is not properly before this Court.”
Martin v. Harrah Indep. Sch. Dist., 543 P.2d 1370 (Okla. 1975). “We do not believe this language permits simultaneous resort to the courts for a writ of mandamus and to the administrative agency for the following reasons: (1) Although the power to issue a writ of mandamus by appellate courts under Art.”
Texas Cnty. Irrigation & Water Resources Ass'n v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 803 P.2d 1119 (Okla. 1990).
Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 2023 OK 96, 536 P.3d 939.
Oklahoma State Bd. of Equalization v. Craig, 749 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1988).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(2): 10 cases
Grand River Dam Auth. v. State, 645 P.2d 1011 (Okla. 1982).
Marley v. Cannon, 618 P.2d 401 (Okla. 1980).
Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982). “If that individual proceedings’ order was then adverse to them, they could then appeal it pursuant to 75 O.S.1971, § 318. As presented, the issue of the validity of the adopted rules is not properly before this Court.”
Corp. Comm'n v. Oklahoma State Pers. Bd., 513 P.2d 116 (Okla. 1973).
Oklahoma Pioneer, Inc. v. Carpenter, 617 P.2d 210 (Okla. 1980).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(A): 2 cases
Dewey v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys., 2001 OK 40, 28 P.3d 539. “[12] Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.1991 § 318 A(1) & B(2). [13] See infra note for the pertinent terms of 75 O.”
Klopfenstein v. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 2008 OK CIV APP 16, 177 P.3d 594. “For these reasons, we find that Appellant complied with the requirements of 75 O.S.2001 § 318, and that the trial court’s dismissal on that basis was error.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(A)(1): 3 cases
Dewey v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys., 2001 OK 40, 28 P.3d 539. “[12] Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.1991 § 318 A(1) & B(2). [13] See infra note for the pertinent terms of 75 O.”
Dept. of Human Servs. Child Support Servs. v. Coldwater, 2014 OK CIV APP 56.
Hummer v. State ex rel. Bd. of Agric., 2010 OK CIV APP 133, 245 P.3d 1244.
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(B): 3 cases
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 2002 OK 42, 54 P.3d 1010.
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 2015 OK 67.
Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 2023 OK 96, 536 P.3d 939.
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(B)(1): 2 cases
State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36.
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Pinaroc, 2002 OK 20, 46 P.3d 114. “75 O.S.Supp.1992 § 318: § 318. Judicial review.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(B)(2): 7 cases
Stipe v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs., 2008 OK 52, 188 P.3d 120. “STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 7 The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (OAPC), 75 O.S.2001 § 318 et seq., governs our review.”
Transwestern Publ'g, L.L.C. v. Langdon, 2004 OK CIV APP 21, 84 P.3d 804.
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Patmon, 1998 OK 91, 975 P.2d 860.
Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 2023 OK 96, 536 P.3d 939.
Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 2015 OK 67.
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(C): 4 cases
Transwestern Publ'g, L.L.C. v. Langdon, 2004 OK CIV APP 21, 84 P.3d 804.
Williams v. Bd. of Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners, 2010 OK CIV APP 100, 241 P.3d 654.
Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 2023 OK 96, 536 P.3d 939.
Choices Inst. v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 2010 OK CIV APP 117, 241 P.3d 705.
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 318(D)(2): 3 cases
Shackelford v. Oklahoma Military Dep't, 919 P.2d 448 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n v. Bauer, 1997 OK CIV APP 83, 951 P.2d 124.
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. Child Support Enf't v. Blessum, 2006 OK CIV APP 16, 131 P.3d 157.
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.