Okla. Stat. » Title 85 — WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 85, § 65.2 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 2011, c. 318, § 87

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

Repealed by Laws 2011, c. 318, § 87.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases, 1954–2009 · leading case: Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. Witt, 500 P.2d 288 (Okla. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. Witt, 500 P.2d 288 (Okla. 1972). · cites it 7× “JACKSON, Justice: The question is whether or not the estoppel provisions of 85 O.S.1971, §§ 65.2 and 65.3 and Rule 24 of the State Industrial Court are applicable and binding upon an “own risk” employer where the employer has listed its office employees among those intended to…”
Shorter v. Tulsa Used Equip. & Indus. Engine Servs., 2006 OK 72, 148 P.3d 864. · cites it 4× “¶ 1 The question presented on certiorari is whether COCA erred when it sustained the three-judge panel’s order that ruled the terms of 85 O.S.2001 § 65.2 4 (the estoppel act) may not be invoked by claimant in today’s cause.”
Wahpepah v. Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, 1997 OK 63, 939 P.2d 1151. · cites it 5× “Wahpepah’s chief argument on review is that by the provisions of 85 O.S. §§ 65.2 and 65.3, collectively known as the “estoppel act,” 4 Fund is estopped to deny the trial tribunal’s cognizance over her claim.”
Dominic v. Creek Nation, 1997 OK 41, 936 P.2d 935. · cites it 3× “22 SUMMARY The “estoppel act,” 85 O.S.1991 §§ 65.2 and 65.3, makes insurers liable regardless of the insured’s status as a covered employer *940 when it is shown that premiums computed on a claimant’s wages were accepted under a policy insuring the employer against liability…”
Little v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 1997 OK 57, 938 P.2d 739. · cites it 5× “4 We invoke, sua sponte, 5 the provisions of 85 O.S. §§ 65.2 and 65.3, collectively known as the “estoppel act,” 6 and hold that Fund stands estopped to deny the tribal tribunal’s cognizance over Little’s claim.”
Cherokee Indus., Inc. v. Alvarez, 2004 OK CIV APP 15, 84 P.3d 798. · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 85 O.S.2001 § 65.2, Employer is estopped *802 from denying that Alvarez was in its employ at the times of the industrial accidents.”
Special Indem. Fund v. Washburn, 722 P.2d 1204 (Okla. 1986). · cites it 2× “But 85 O.S.1981 § 65.2 brings an estoppel into play.”
Miller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 550 P.2d 1330 (Okla. 1976). · cites it 2× “As originally enacted by our 1947 Legislature, the Es-toppel Act (now codified as 85 O.S.1971, Sections 65.2 and 65.3) consisted of three sections.”
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Miller, 451 P.2d 932 (Okla. 1968). · cites it 3× “It appears, therefore, that in order for compensation coverage to extend to include Miller’s employment at the service station, Mid-Continent must be estopped to deny coverage, 85 O.”
Lum v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 757 P.2d 810 (Okla. 1987). “2d 905, 906-907 [1963] for the effect of our Estoppel Act, 85 O.S.1981 §§ 65.2 and 65.3. The terms of a § 61(d) guaranty are different.”
Jarvis v. City of Stillwater, 669 P.2d 1108 (Okla. 1983). “We are left here without explicit guidance as to whether the § 155(14) exclusion can be invoked against one who may, but is yet to, elect between a tort claim and a proceeding for compensation.”
Pales v. Cherokee Nation Enter., 2009 OK CIV APP 65, 216 P.3d 309. “85 O.S.2001 § 65.2. That section provides: § 65.”
Show all 40 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.