Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322 (2026)
Setting aside, modifying or reversing of orders - Remand -
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Affirmance.
(1) In any proceeding for the review of an agency order, proceeding for the review of an agency order, the Supreme Court or the district court, as the case may be, in the exercise of proper judicial discretion or authority, may set aside or modify the order, or reverse it and remand it to the agency for further proceedings, if it determines that the substantial rights of the appellant or petitioner for review have been prejudiced because the agency findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions, are: (a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or (b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (c) made upon unlawful procedure; or (d) affected by other error of law; or (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, material, probative and substantial competent evidence, as defined in Section 10 of this act, including matters properly noticed by the agency upon examination and consideration of the entire record as submitted; but without otherwise substituting its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the agency on question of fact; or (f) arbitrary or capricious; or (g) because findings of fact, upon issues essential to the decision were not made although requested. (2) The reviewing court, also in the exercise of proper judicial discretion or authority, may remand the case to the agency for the taking and consideration of further evidence, if it is deemed essential to a proper disposition of the issue. (3) The reviewing court shall affirm the order and decision of the agency, if it is found to be valid and the proceedings are free from prejudicial error to the appellant. Laws 1963, c. 371, § 22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987).
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
State Ex Rel. Okla. State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision v. Rivero, 2021 OK 31 (Okla. 2021). “One statute referenced is 75 O.S.2011 § 322, which contains the following language relevant to a standard of review on appeal.”
Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. McCrady, 2007 OK 39 (Okla. 2007). “Standard of Review ¶ 10 The Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 75 O.S.2001 § 322, provides a standard for this court’s review of state agencies’ orders.”
Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enf't Comm'n, 764 P.2d 172 (Okla. 1988). “75 O.S.1981, § 322. Finally, in an administrative appeal, a court can reverse the decision of an administrative agency if rendered in excess of the agencies’ statutory authority or jurisdiction.”
Johnson v. Bd. of Governors of Registered Dentists, 913 P.2d 1339 (Okla. 1996). “[4] While contemplation of these far-reaching consequences will not deter us from holding a statute unconstitutional, I find no constitutional necessity to override the Dental Board's choice of standards.”
Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2020). “Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322 . But even if this cause of action constitutes a property right, the owners didn’t show a deprivation.”
State Ex Rel. Prot. Health Servs. State Dep't of Health v. Vaughn, 2009 OK 61 (Okla. 2009). “75 O.S.2001, § 322(1). ¶ 9 In the present case there are no disputed facts, so we must determine if the ALJ's order was free of legal error and was within the Department's authority.”
Tulsa Area Hosp. Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts Univ., 626 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1981). “THIS APPEAL IS SOUGHT TO BE PROSECUTED FROM AN UNAPPEALA-BLE DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ORDER The district court order from which the appeal is sought to be prosecuted remanded this cause to the agency whence it came, the Oklahoma Health…”
Cole v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2020 OK 67 (Okla. 2020). “See 75 O.S.2011 § 322 (2) ("The reviewing court, also in the exercise of proper judicial discretion or authority, may remand the case to the agency for the taking and consideration of further evidence, if it is deemed essential to a proper disposition of the issue.”
Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 810 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1991). “Finally, it decided because no administrative record was before the trial court no error could be found in ODH’s decision to grant the permit under the review standards set out in 75 O.S.1981, § 322 of the OAPA. Appel-lees filed a petition for certiorari, which we previously…”
Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Texas Cnty. Irrigation & Water Resources Assn., 711 P.2d 38 (Okla. 1984). “Although the Association did not cross-appeal, the issues in this administrative proceeding are formed by the evidence.”
City of Tulsa v. State Ex Rel. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 1998 OK 92 (Okla. 1998). “75 O.S.1991, § 322(3). An administrative order, however, is subject to reversal if an appealing party’s substantial rights are prejudiced because the agency’s decision is entered in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction, or an order is entered based on an error of law.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(1): 17 cases
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
State Ex Rel. Prot. Health Servs. State Dep't of Health v. Vaughn, 2009 OK 61 (Okla. 2009). “75 O.S.2001, § 322(1). ¶ 9 In the present case there are no disputed facts, so we must determine if the ALJ's order was free of legal error and was within the Department's authority.”
Oklahoma Water Resources Bd. v. Cent. Oklahoma Master Conservancy Dist., 464 P.2d 748 (Okla. 1969).
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Trs. v. Garrett, 848 P.2d 1182 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Martin v. Harrah Indep. Sch. Dist., 543 P.2d 1370 (Okla. 1975).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(1)(a): 2 cases
Lamb v. State Ex Rel. Prot. Health Servs. of the State Health Dep't, 2010 OK CIV APP 73 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).
State Ex Rel. Dhs, Csed v. Palmer, 2009 OK CIV APP 38 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(1)(b): 1 case
Mcalary v. State Ex Rel. Dep. of Hum. Serv., 2010 OK CIV APP 39 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(1)(d): 1 case
Daily v. State Ex Rel. Dhs, 2009 OK CIV APP 107 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(1)(e): 6 cases
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
Gibbs v. State Dep't of Rehab. Servs., 889 P.2d 899 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist., Etc., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981).
Leo v. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 2023 OK 96 (Okla. 2023).
Mcalary v. State Ex Rel. Dep. of Hum. Serv., 2010 OK CIV APP 39 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(2): 2 cases
Jackson v. Maley, 806 P.2d 610 (Okla. 1991).
Tulsa Area Hosp. Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts Univ., 626 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1981). “THIS APPEAL IS SOUGHT TO BE PROSECUTED FROM AN UNAPPEALA-BLE DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ORDER The district court order from which the appeal is sought to be prosecuted remanded this cause to the agency whence it came, the Oklahoma Health…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(3): 10 cases
City of Tulsa v. State Ex Rel. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 1998 OK 92 (Okla. 1998). “75 O.S.1991, § 322(3). An administrative order, however, is subject to reversal if an appealing party’s substantial rights are prejudiced because the agency’s decision is entered in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction, or an order is entered based on an error of law.”
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
Caward v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Mines, 818 P.2d 506 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Gibbs v. State Dep't of Rehab. Servs., 889 P.2d 899 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Lockhart v. Teachers' Ret. Sys., 1998 OK CIV APP 42 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(8): 1 case
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Palmer, 212 P.3d 491 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(a): 1 case
Trust Co. of Okl. v. State Ex Rel. Ddhs, 890 P.2d 1342 (Okla. 1995).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l): 3 cases
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
Caward v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Mines, 818 P.2d 506 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Martinez v. State ex rel. Okalahoma State Bd. of Med. Licensure & Supervision, 852 P.2d 173 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(a): 3 cases
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
In re the Non-Reemployment of Isch v. Oklahoma Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 963 P.2d 18 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
Kline v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Water Resources Bd., 646 P.2d 1258 (Okla. 1981).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(b): 1 case
Ledbetter v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enf't Comm'n, 764 P.2d 172 (Okla. 1988). “75 O.S.1981, § 322. Finally, in an administrative appeal, a court can reverse the decision of an administrative agency if rendered in excess of the agencies’ statutory authority or jurisdiction.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(d): 1 case
Price v. State ex rel. State Employees Grp. Health, Dental & Life Ins. Bd., 757 P.2d 839 (Okla. 1988).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(e): 9 cases
Seely v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 743 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987). “) By that statement, the Supreme Court again indicated that the rules for review contained in 75 O.S. § 322 are to be applied by both the district court in the first instance and by Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.”
Tulsa Area Hosp. Council, Inc. v. Oral Roberts Univ., 626 P.2d 316 (Okla. 1981). “THIS APPEAL IS SOUGHT TO BE PROSECUTED FROM AN UNAPPEALA-BLE DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S ORDER The district court order from which the appeal is sought to be prosecuted remanded this cause to the agency whence it came, the Oklahoma Health…”
In re the Non-Reemployment of Isch v. Oklahoma Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 963 P.2d 18 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
Childers v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Bryan Cnty., 645 P.2d 992 (Okla. 1981).
Humana Hosp. Corp. v. Oklahoma Health Plan. Comm'n, 705 P.2d 175 (Okla. 1985).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(f): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Trs. v. Garrett, 848 P.2d 1182 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Okla. Stat. tit. 75, § 322(l)(g): 1 case
Brown v. Banking Bd., 579 P.2d 1267 (Okla. 1978).
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.