Okla. Stat. » Title 76 — TORTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 8.1 (2026)

Alienation of affections or seduction - Civil action -

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

Abolition. From and after the effective date of this act, the alienation of the affections of a spouse of sound mind and legal age or seduction of any person of sound mind and legal age is hereby abolished as a civil cause of action in this state. Added by Laws 1976, c. 164, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1976.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1979–2014 · leading case: Lockhart v. Loosen, 1997 OK 103 (Okla. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockhart v. Loosen, 1997 OK 103 (Okla. 1997). · cites it 12× “76 O.S.1991 § 8.1. [3] II ¶ 4 THE HISTORICAL LINK BETWEEN CRIMINAL CONVERSATION AND SEDUCTION ¶ 5 Criminal conversation and seduction are bound, one to the other, by their common *1083 antecedent in the writ of trespass vi et armis.”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “[6] Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (West Supp.”
Bladen v. First Presbyterian Church of Sallisaw, 857 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 3× “So too, in this case the husband’s claim of breach of a fiduciary relationship by the affair is a claim of injury to the marital relationship that is legislatively barred by 76 O.S.1991 § 8.1. We conclude that the husband's claims arising from the affair are not cognizable.”
Veeder v. Kennedy, 1999 SD 23 (S.D. 1999). · cites it 2× “…§ 553.01 (1988); Montana, MontCode Ann § 27-1-601 (Smith 1997); Nebraska, NebRevStat § 25-21, 188 (1995); Nevada, NevRevStat § 41.380 (1997); New Jersey, NJStatAnn § 2A:23-1 (West 1987); New York, NYCivRightsLaw § 80-a (McKinney 1992); North Dakota, NDCentCode § 14-02-06…”
Wyman v. Wallace, 615 P.2d 452 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “Rights Law § 80 -a (McKinney 1976); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (West Supp.”
Fundermann v. Mickelson, 304 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 1981). · cites it 2× “Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (West Supp.”
Rollings v. Thermodyne Indus., Inc., 910 P.2d 1030 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 2× “In other words, Section 6 was intended to guarantee that the judiciary would be open and available for the resolution of disputes, but not to guarantee that any particular set of events would result in court-awarded relief. 2 The Legislature may repeal the actionability of…”
Lynn v. Shaw, 620 P.2d 899 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 3× “The question presented is whether 76 O.S.Supp. 1976 § 8.1 1 abolished by implication the tort of criminal conversation when it explicitly abrogated the causes of action for alienation of affections and seduction.”
Russo v. Sutton, 422 S.E.2d 750 (S.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “29 (1991); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (1987); Or.”
Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 2007). “Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 8.1 (1976) Pennsylvania has abolished the tort except in those cases where the defendant is the parent or sibling of the plaintiff's spouse Pa.”
Wilson v. Still, 819 P.2d 714 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “The present statute is 76 O.S.1981 § 8.1. “From and after the effective date of this act, the alienation of the affections of a spouse of sound mind and legal age or seduction of any person of sound mind and legal age is hereby abolished as a civil cause of action in this state.”
Cannon v. Miller, 322 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “29 (Page 1981); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76, § 8.1 (West Supp.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.