Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 321 (2026)
Review without jury - Additional testimony
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, testimony thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs. Laws 1963, c. 371, § 21.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36.
State ex rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31, 489 P.3d 36. “"), citing 75 O.S.1991 § 321. 37 Ricks Exploration v.”
Baggett v. Webb, 557 P.2d 433 (Okla. 1976). “1961 § 531 that an appeal to the district court from an order of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board shall consist of a trial de novo is in conflict with, and was superseded by, the provision in Section 21 of the 1963 Administrative Procedures Act (75 O.S.Supp.1968 §…”
City of Tulsa v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 1998 OK 92, 967 P.2d 1214. “75 O.S.1991, § 321; Lowry v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 1981 OK 80 , 631 P.”
Stipe v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs., 2008 OK 52, 188 P.3d 120. “75 O.S.2001 § 321. The district court entered an order filed August 8, 2005, which found that OPERS had misapplied the forfeiture statute in excess of its statutory authority because the federal offenses had nothing to do with Stipe's service in office and did not violate his…”
Trask v. Johnson, 452 P.2d 575 (Okla. 1969). “” The respondent judge overruled the petitioners’ oral motion for a trial de novo, specifically ruling that the procedure for judicial review of such an order is governed by the “Administrative Procedures Act” of 1963, which provides, in Section 21 thereof (75 O.S.Supp.1968 §…”
Transwestern Publ'g, L.L.C. v. Langdon, 2004 OK CIV APP 21, 84 P.3d 804. “75 O.S. § 321. ¶ 6 In their motions to dismiss, both Employee and DOL argued that in an action for judicial review of an agency’s administrative order under the OAPA, § 318 and § 320 expressly or implicitly required joinder of the administrative agency as a necessary party…”
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “75 O.S.1981 § 321. The reviewing court may remand the cause for the taking of additional testimony “if [additional testimony] is deemed essential to a proper disposition of the issue.”
Robbins v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 461 P.2d 610 (Okla. 1969). “1961 § 531 that an appeal to the district court from an order of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board shall consist of a trial de novo is in conflict with, and was superseded by, the provision in Section 21 of the 1963 Administrative Procedures Act (75 O.S.Supp.1968 §…”
Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Burris, 626 P.2d 1316 (Okla. 1980). “Review of an administrative ruling by the district court provided by the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.1971 § 321, is confined to the record.”
Broyles v. Oklahoma Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 2014 OK CIV APP 53, 333 P.3d 266. “75 O.S. § 321. 115 OESC argues the trial court erred by failing to allow oral argument and briefing as permitted by 75 O.”
Caward v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Mines, 818 P.2d 506 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “75 O.S. § 321. 6 . Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission, 743 P.”
Choices Inst., Inc. v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 2013 OK CIV APP 71, 308 P.3d 177. “75 O.S. § 321; City of Tulsa v. Public Employees Relations Board, 1998 OK 92, ¶ 12 , 967 P.”
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.