12 Okla. Stat. § 2008

Section 2008 limits the particularity required when pleading fraud under § 2009(B).

Gay v. Akin · filed 1988-12-20

Despite these purposes, the particularity requirement is not unbounded; § 2008 serves as a limitation.

Section 2008(A)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim with enough detail to let the opposing party respond.

Curlee v. Norman · filed 1989-04-25(A)(1)

Particular pleading requirements include “only the degree of specificity necessary to enable the opposing party to prepare his responsive pleadings and defenses.” ... The petition includes enough specificity to enable the defendants to respond.

Section 2008(A)(1) requires a short, plain statement of the claim with enough specificity to let the opposing party respond.

McFeely v. Tredway · filed 1990-08-14(A)(1)

The petition includes enough specificity to enable Defendants to respond to the allegations of fraud and conspiracy. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the petition as to those counts, and its order is hereby reversed and the case remanded.

A claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement that gives the opposing party fair notice of the claim and its grounds.

Gunn v. Consolidated Rural Water & Sewer District No. 1 · filed 1992-09-22(A)(1)

Section 2008(A)(1) of the Oklahoma Pleading Code [Pleading Code] and Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the progenitor of our pleading code, require that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” consisting of “simple, concise and direct” averments showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. ... Gunn’s petition, which states that hé was wrongfully terminated in violation of §§ 5-7 of the Compensation Act, alleges facts upon which relief may be available. It is hence sufficient to withstand the District’s quest for the claim’s dismissal.

Section 2008(A) requires a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief; satisfying those notice pleading requirements does not change the plaintiff’s burden of proof at trial.

Erwin v. Frazier · filed 1989-06-13(A)

These allegations satisfy the notice pleading requirements under Oklahoma law, but in no way alter the burden of proof to be placed upon the plaintiff at trial, which burden includes all the elements recited above in Allred, supra.

Section 2008 requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, without detailed facts.

Bettis v. Brown · filed 1991-10-22(A)(1), (2)

It merely requires “a short and plain' statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 12 O.S.Supp.1984 § 2008(A)(1), (2). Bettis’ Petition meets these requirements.

Section 2008 requires a short and plain statement of the claim that gives the defendant fair notice of it.

Temeron, Inc. v. Ferraro Energy Corp. · filed 1993-05-11

Recognizing that notice pleading only requires a short and plain statement of the claim which will give the defendant fair notice of plaintiff's claim, we hold the trial court erred in sustaining Northern's motion to dismiss. Niemeyer, at 1320-1321; 12 O.S. 1991, § 2008.

Section 2008(A) requires a short, plain statement showing entitlement to relief; allegations of a bank tying violation, resulting damage, and a claim for relief satisfy that requirement.

Brown v. Founders Bank and Trust Co. · filed 1994-12-15(A)

Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. ... Allegations that a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1972 (1989) resulted in damage to the borrower coupled with a claim for relief are sufficient to satisfy these pleading requirements.

Section 2008 requires a petition to contain a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for judgment.

Smith v. Speligene · filed 1999-05-25

The petition is a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for judgment. 12 O.S.1991, § 2008. ... Therefore, based solely on the petition, it cannot be said that the allegations show beyond any doubt that Smith can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.

Section 2008 requires a short, plain statement giving fair notice of the claim and directs courts to construe pleadings to do substantial justice; a plaintiff need not plead detailed facts showing that alleged interference was unjustified.

Niemeyer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1990-04-03(A), (F)

Notice pleading under the Code merely requires "a short and plain statement of the claim" which will give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. ... Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2008(F) provides that pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice. ... Based on these statutory provisions, we find that the petition states a claim for a tortious interference with a contract.

Section 2008(A) requires a pleading to give fair notice of the claim and its grounds; a petition that does not notify defendants of a negligence theory does not present that theory.

Coble v. Bowers · filed 1990-12-04(A)

Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 2008(A), under "General Rules of Pleading," requires that the pleader present "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief." The Committee Comment to § 2008 observes that, although the old rule requiring recitation of "`facts constituting a cause of action'" has been simplified, a pleading must give "`fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Coble's petition, liberally construed, did not notify Defendants that he was proceeding under a negligence theory.

Section 2008(A) requires a short and plain statement of the claim; a pleading can satisfy it by giving notice of a challenge to a rule’s validity without naming the rule.

Jones v. Oklahoma Merit Protection Commission · filed 1993-05-11(A)

While Jones has not specifically named Rule 5.6.4.2, he has by his pleading put the parties on notice of his challenge to the validity of the rule. The substance of the pleading will control over the strict form of the pleading. The pleading constitutes a short and plain statement of the claim as required by 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A) of the Pleading Code and a request for declaratory relief as required by 12 O.S. 1991 § 1651.

Section 2008 requires a short, plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief; the pleading need only give the opposing party fair notice of the claim and its grounds.

Indiana National Bank v. State Department of Human Services · filed 1994-08-18(A)(1)(2)

In our review, we must keep in mind, “[a] pleading ... shall contain ... [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and ... [a] demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.” 12 O.S.1991, § 2008(A)(1)(2). This requirement is not onerous, but is merely to give an opposing party fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.

Section 2008’s claim-for-relief requirement is satisfied by a request to adjudicate priority between competing claims.

Winkler v. Solutions Group, Inc. · filed 1995-10-24

In its second proposition, Bank argues Winkler asserted no positive “claim for relief’ upon which an award of attorney fees might stand, citing the Oklahoma Pleading Code, 12 O.S.1991 § 2008. We go no farther than to observe that Winkler clearly requested an adjudication of priority between the competing claims of Bank and Winkler in seeking to compel joinder of Bank after receipt of American First Title Company’s garnishment answer, and we summarily reject this proposition.

Section 2008(A) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and an inartfully drafted petition can satisfy that requirement.

Brander's Club, Inc. v. City of Lawton · filed 1996-05-28(A)

A petition must “contain ... [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(A) (1991). ... Under Oklahoma’s liberal pleading code, the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim entitling it to relief.

Section 2008(A) makes a pleading’s content control over its title when identifying whom it sues.

Stone v. Estate of Sigman · filed 1998-09-15(A)

A pleading is judged by its content rather than its title.

Section 2008(A)(1) requires a petition to give fair notice of a claim and its grounds.

Mahorney v. Waren · filed 2002-10-11(A)(1)

Notwithstanding, we find pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(A)(l)(“notice pleading” provision), Appellant’s petition gave “fair notice of [his] claim [for negligence] and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Section 2008’s notice pleading standard governs a replevin petition when the delivery order rests on evidence from a hearing; the petition need only give fair notice of the claim and its grounds.

BULARD AIR SERVICES v. BROWN AVIATION · filed 2019-04-18

Furthermore, in replevin cases where the order for delivery does not rest solely on the verified allegations of the petition, the sufficiency of the petition is governed by the Oklahoma Pleading Code. ... All that is required under notice pleading is that the petition give fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Title 12 O.S. §2008 merely requires that the pleading shall contain "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Section 2008 requires a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief, without detailed supporting facts.

Fanning v. Brown · filed 2004-02-10(A)(1) & (2)

The Pleading Code does not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which the claim is based but merely requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and ... [a] demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.”

Section 2008 requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment; a petition pleading sufficient facts meets its notice pleading requirements.

Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc. · filed 2008-01-15(A)(1)-(2)

We find Darrow's amended petition is protected from dismissal by pleading sufficient facts within the meaning of notice-pleading requirements.

Section 2008(A) requires a short and plain statement that gives fair notice of the claim and its grounds.

BURGIN v. LEACH · filed 2014-01-21(A)

Our rules of pleading require only a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, combined with a demand for judgment. 12 O.S.Supp. 2013 §2008(A). The petition need only give fair notice of the plaintiffs' claims and the grounds upon which it rests.

Section 2008 requires a state-court petition to satisfy a notice pleading standard.

Lowe v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2019-07-19

Plaintiff’s pleading was filed in state court, where it was required to satisfy only the notice pleading standard of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008.

Section 2008(A)(2) requires a generic request for damages exceeding $10,000, but requesting a specific amount does not invalidate service of the petition.

Coulsen v. Owens · filed 2005-09-06(A)(2)

We find no merit to the argument advanced by Defendant that service of process upon Defendant was defective because Plaintiffs’ petition did not generically request damages “in excess of $10,000,” but instead chose to plead for specific damages in the amount of $375,000.00. This violation of § 2008(A)(2) is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not proper service of-process was obtained.

Section 2008(A) requires a pleading asserting a claim to state the basis for relief and demand judgment; an entry of appearance that does neither is insufficient.

Fuchs v. Fleetwood Homes of Texas · filed 2006-10-31(A)

In this case, however, Plaintiffs "Entry of Appearance" does not meet either statutory requirement under even the most liberal view, nor does it give "fair notice of the claim" or "the grounds upon which it rests." ... We conclude that the filing of Plaintiffs' "Entry of Appearance" did not commence the lawsuit, and, therefore, the lawsuit is barred because it was not filed within the two-year statutory period.

Section 2008 requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief; absent express legislative direction, it imposes no additional pleading requirements.

Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd. Partnership · filed 2017-09-28(A)(1)

Therefore, we conclude the Oklahoma Supreme Court would interpret Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008, like its federal counterpart, to require only the listed elements unless the legislature expressly provides otherwise.

Section 2008(F) requires pleadings to be construed to do substantial justice, so omitting a party from the caption is not fatal when the petition identifies that party in its body and gives notice.

Klopfenstein v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services · filed 2008-01-11(F)

Although the Oklahoma and federal rules of pleading require parties to be named in the caption of a petition, the failure to do so is not necessarily fatal to the action. ... Because our state uses “notice” pleading, “[statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different part of the same pleading,” 12 O.S.2001 § 2010(C), and “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(F).

Section 2008(A)(2) permits a tort plaintiff seeking more than $10,000 to plead that damages exceed $10,000 without stating a specific amount.

Vannoy v. Earth Biofuels, Inc. · filed 2009-01-30(A)(2)

In a tort matter, a plaintiff seeking more than $10,000.00 in damages need not demand in the petition any specific amount of money but may state only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $10,000.00. 12 O.S. 2001 § 2008(A)(2).

Section 2008 does not require a petition to state specific legal theories for a claim.

EXENCIAL WEALTH ADVISORS v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY · filed 2024-11-22

Excencial's Amended Petition does not state specific legal theories for its claim against Morgan Stanley, nor is it required to do so.

Section 2008 permits a defendant to preserve a defense by raising it in a motion to dismiss and then in an answer.

Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant · filed 1988-06-14

Presentation of defenses in a motion to dismiss and subsequent answer is the accepted practice for raising and preserving defenses. 12 O.S.Supp. 1984, §§ 2008, 2012.

Section 2008(C)(3) requires a defendant to plead assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense or waive it.

Hendren v. Mercy Health Center Inc. · filed 1988-12-20(C)(3)

Assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense which must be pled or it is waived. ... The defendant hospital in its answer filed only a general denial.

Section 2008 permits alternative defenses and requires a party to raise failure of consideration in its response or the existence of consideration is deemed admitted.

Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. CITICORP ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, INC. · filed 1989-03-21(D) and (E)

Similarly, our pleading code not only permits alternative pleading, but Citicorp is required to raise the affirmative defense of failure of consideration in a response, otherwise the existence of consideration is deemed to have been admitted.

Section 2008(C) requires a statute of limitations defense to be pleaded as an affirmative defense; failure to plead it waives the defense.

Furr v. Thomas · filed 1991-09-24(C)

Under 12 O.S.Supp.1987 § 2008(C), statutes of limitation must be pled as an affirmative defense. ... The failure to plead this affirmative defense operated as a waiver, and Father is not now entitled to resurrect it.

Section 2008(C) requires a party to raise affirmative defenses or waive them.

Pharaoh v. Pharaoh · filed 1993-11-16(C)

Clearly Appellant must raise his own affirmative defenses, or waive them.

Section 2008(C)(3) requires a defendant to plead assumption of risk as an affirmative defense unless the plaintiff's evidence raises the issue.

Byford v. Town of Asher · filed 1994-05-10(C)(3)

12 O.S. 1991 § 2008(C)(3). The law was the same under the now-defunct Code of Civil Procedure. Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense which the defendant must plead unless the issue is raised by the plaintiff's evidence.

Section 2008(C) requires a party to state affirmative defenses in its responsive pleading; an omitted defense may be treated as pleaded when the parties litigate it by consent.

Liberty Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, N.A. v. Bachrach · filed 1996-02-27(C)

Failure to give notice of dishonor is an affirmative defense. See Okla.Stat. tit. 12, §§ 2008, 2012(B) (1991). Section 2008(C) requires affirmative defenses to be set forth affirmatively in responsive pleadings. This section must be read as part of the statutory scheme and not in isolation. ... We find the answer should be treated as amended to include the affirmative defense of failure to give timely notice of the first dishonor.

Section 2008 requires affirmative defenses to be pleaded or they are waived; a request for post-verdict credit for pre-litigation payments is not an affirmative defense.

Baker v. Barnes · filed 1997-10-28

While we agree that failure to plead an affirmative defense results in its waiver, an affirmative defense is one which assumes or admits the original cause of action but is based on subsequent facts which operate to qualify or defeat the original cause of action. ... In the present case, however, Appellees did not seek to defeat or qualify Coble’s action to be compensated for damages sustained “in excess of $10,000.00”; rather, Appellees sought a post-verdict credit for pre-litigation monies tendered to Coble by Appellees’ insurance carrier for Coble’s medical expenses and lost wages, both of which were sought by Coble in the instant action. ... Accordingly, we find that Appellees did not waive any right to credit, and properly raised the issue in response to Coble’s post-verdict motion for costs, fees, and interest.

Section 2008(C)(5) requires a bankruptcy discharge to be pleaded as an affirmative defense, including in workers’ compensation cases through Rule 2.

Homeland Insurance Co. v. Rankin · filed 1993-02-09(C)(5)

A discharge in bankruptcy is an affirmative defense which must be affirmatively plead in district courts of Oklahoma. 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(C)(5). Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Workers’ Compensation Court Rules, this requirement of affirmative pleading is also applicable to workers’ compensation cases.

Section 2008(C)(18) treats a statute of limitations defense as an affirmative defense requiring factual determinations to apply.

Rummage v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation · filed 1993-03-02(C)(18)

Pleading a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, requiring the court to make factual determinations to apply the law. See, 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(C)(18).

Section 2008(C) requires a party to plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, but permits the defense to be added by amendment under § 2015.

Prough v. Edinger, Inc. · filed 1993-10-12(C)

Section 2008 is governed by § 2015, which provides for the liberal granting of amendments.

Section 2008 requires a party to plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

Reddell v. Johnson · filed 1997-07-01(C)(18)

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. ... The answer, while pleading several affirmative defenses, does not raise the statute of limitations. ... It is not the place of an appellate court in a case such as this to in effect plead and prove for a party an affirmative defense that the party, intentionally or otherwise, did not plead nor prove.

Section 2008(C) treats the Governmental Tort Claims Act's one-year claim-presentment bar as an affirmative defense.

Tice v. Pennington · filed 2001-05-30(C)(18) and (20)

This time-bar is an affirmative defense for the Hospital. 12 O.S. 1991, § 2008(C)(18) and (20).

Section 2008(C)(18) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

Moneypenney v. Dawson · filed 2006-07-05(C)(18)

The bar of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. 12 O.S.2001, § 2008(0(18).

Section 2008(C) requires a party to plead a statute of limitations defense affirmatively; the defense is not waived merely because it first appears in an answer to an amended petition.

Miller v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. · filed 2008-03-04(C)

Title 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(C) provides that a party “shall set forth affirmatively” a statute of limitations defense “[i]n pleading to a preceding pleading.” ... Miller cites no case holding that the assertion of an affirmative defense in a subsequent answer is not permitted if it was not included in the first answer filed by Liberty Mutual. Consequently, Liberty Mutual did not waive its statute of limitations defense.

Section 2008 requires illegality to be pleaded as an affirmative defense, or the defense is waived.

Ahlschlager v. LAWTON SCHOOL DIST. · filed 2010-06-01(10)

That section requires the illegality to be set forth as a pleaded affirmative defense. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(10).

Section 2008(C)(16) and (20) treats claim and issue preclusion as affirmative defenses.

Barton v. City of Midwest City · filed 2011-03-01(C)(16) and (20)

However, as a consequence of further submissions, the cause acquired elements of: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Section 2012(B)(1) for not filing a governmental tort claim; (2) another action pending for the same claim under Section 2012(B)(8); and, (8) affirmative defenses of res judicata (issue and claim preclusion) under 12 O.S. Supp.2010, § 2008(C)(16) and (20). ... On the other hand, when the defendant relies upon an affirmative defense, as here with claim or issue preclusion, then the defendant, as the party with the burden of proof, must meet the same standards as a plaintiff movant.

Section 2008(C) permits factual allegations to give fair notice of an affirmative defense even when the defense is not expressly named.

GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC. v. DALKE · filed 2017-09-26(C)

We agree with Dalke that his factual allegations at least put Green Tree on notice of his defenses. This is consistent with the principles of pleading which are meant to give fair notice, rather than allow disposition purely on technicalities.

Section 2008(C) requires a party to plead fraud, estoppel, waiver, and other affirmative defenses.

Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. J & S Exch., Inc. · filed 2018-11-07(C)

Like its federal counterpart, the Oklahoma Pleading Code also requires that an affirmative defense be pled and identifies fraud, estoppel, and waiver as affirmative defenses. 12 O.S. § 2008(C). This Oklahoma statute also requires a party to affirmatively set forth "[a]ny other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense."

Section 2008(C) treats res judicata and collateral estoppel as affirmative defenses, not grounds for affirmative relief in a counterclaim.

BITCO General Insurance Corporation v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company · filed 2019-11-22(C)

Under Oklahoma law, res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses. See, Brady v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 538 F.3d 1319, 1327 (10th Cir. 2008); Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. McCrady, 176 P.3d 1194, 1198 n. 21 (Okla. 2007); James v. Unknown Trustees, 220 P.2d 831, 834 (Okla. 1950); 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C). The doctrines bar re-litigation of claims, defenses and issues.

Section 2008(C)(18) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

LAST CHANCE MINERALS v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO. · filed 2023-08-25(C)(18)

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. 12 O.S.2021 § 2008(C)(18). Therefore, Amoco was required to demonstrate that the record reveals no substantial controversy as to any material fact regarding the statute of limitations and that the uncontroverted facts are in its favor.

Section 2008(C)(18) treats the statute of limitation as an affirmative defense.

BASE v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION · filed 2024-02-06(C)(18)

The statute of limitation is an affirmative defense. 12 O.S.Supp.2018, § 2008(C)(18); cf. supra notes 48--49 and accompanying text (stating that Devon listed the statute of limitation among its affirmative defenses).

Section 2008(C) requires a party to raise illegality as an affirmative defense in a responsive pleading; an untimely attempt to raise it later may be waived.

TULSA AMBULATORY PROCEDURE CENTER v. OLMSTEAD · filed 2024-06-25(C)

Under subsection C, a party responding to a pleading set forth in subsection A, shall raise any affirmative defenses in an original responsive pleading. ... There can be no doubt that the record supports the trial court's determination of waiver in this case. Plaintiffs' last-minute attempt to raise the illegality defense could plainly be seen as undue delay, dilatory motive and/or bad faith.

Section 2008(C)(18) makes the statute of limitations an affirmative defense.

Wing v. Lorton · filed 2011-05-17(C)(18)

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(C)(18) (Supp.2009). Therefore, Defendants as movants were required to demonstrate that the record reveals no substantial controversy as to any material fact regarding the statute of limitations and that the uncontroverted facts are in their favor.

Section 2008(B) gives opposing parties in an interpleader action the right to state their defenses.

MIDFIRST BANK v. POE · filed 2020-10-23(B)

We hold opposing parties must be afforded a right to state their defenses in accordance with 12 O.S. §2008(B).

Section 2008(C)(2)'s “arbitration and award” defense concerns a claim already resolved by arbitration; a party need not plead the right to compel arbitration in its answer.

HOWELL'S WELL SERVICE v. FOCUS GROUP ADVISORS · filed 2021-05-18(C)(2)

We agree with Defendants/Appellants that the reliance on § 2008 in this matter is misplaced. ... We thus find that the failure to raise the right to arbitration in an answer, although not encouraged as discussed further below, is not fatal to asserting the defense by motion as set forth under OUAA's § 1856(A).

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a plaintiff to plead alternative theories of liability.

Hooper v. American Strategic Insurance Corporation · filed 2025-04-17(E)(2)

However, Plaintiff describes his claims as alternative theories of liability, which the applicable pleading rules permit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2008(E)(2).

Section 2008(A) permits a plaintiff to demand alternative relief on a single claim.

The Co., Inc. v. Trion Energy · filed 1988-07-12(A)

Relief in the alternative may be demanded. 12 O.S.Supp.1987 § 2008(A). The basis for the plaintiff’s claim was a breach of contract which provided for payment of rental on the leased items and for damages to those items. The filing of the lien was an attempt to secure the amount owed on the contract. Therefore, although stated in the alternative, the appellant had but one claim for relief.

Section 2008 permits alternative requests for relief and multiple claims at trial, requiring the judge to hear relevant evidence on properly pleaded grounds.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1993-02-09(A)(2), (E)(2)

The Oklahoma Pleading Code allows a party to demand relief of several types or in the alternative. 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A)(2). Further, at trial, a party may rely on two or more statements of a claim. 12 O.S. 1991 § 2008(E)(2). These statutory provisions compel a trial judge to hear all relevant evidence addressed to properly-pled grounds.

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a party to plead inconsistent claims or defenses and rely on them throughout trial, though inconsistent judgments or double recovery may be barred.

Howell v. James · filed 1991-05-22(E)(2)

Clearly, the enactment of Section 2008(E)(2) operates to limit the application of the doctrine of election of remedies. A litigant may plead inconsistent defenses, and rely on these defenses throughout the trial. While inconsistent judgments or double recovery may not be permissible, the party is not prevented from fully litigating the inconsistent theories or defenses at trial.

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a party to plead inconsistent claims or defenses, including denying negligence while seeking contribution from a third party.

Stotts v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints · filed 1994-09-13(E)(2)

A party is permitted to plead as many claims or defenses as it has “regardless of consistency.” 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(E)(2). A combined answer and third-party petition is not subject to dismissal merely because it includes both a denial of negligence in answer to the plaintiffs allegations, and an assertion of contribution rights over against a third-party defendant.

Section 2008(E)(2) ends the requirement that a pleader elect among inconsistent remedies before submission.

Ethics Commission v. Cullison · filed 1993-03-30(E)(2)

With its enactment, the doctrine of mandatory election of remedies before submission became an anachronism. 12 O.S. 1991 § 2008(E)(2); Howell v. James, Okl., 818 P.2d 444, 446-448 (1991).

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a party to pursue alternative factual versions of a claim without choosing one before submission.

Qualls v. United States Elevator Corp. · filed 1993-10-26(E)(2)

While inconsistent judgments and double recovery cannot be allowed, a party is not prevented from prosecuting a claim based on two or more alternative fact versions.

Section 2008(A) allows a plaintiff to seek relief on alternative claims without electing one cause of action.

Rosson v. Coburn · filed 1994-02-15(A)

A plaintiff is no longer required to "waive” or elect a cause of action, but may now ask for relief in the alternative. See, 12 O.S.1991 § 2008(A).

Section 2008(E)(2) allows parties to plead alternative or hypothetical claims and rely on inconsistent theories without electing a single theory.

Beshara v. Southern National Bank · filed 1996-07-16(E)(2)

Under our liberalized pleading code, although double recovery may not be permissible, parties are allowed to set forth statements of claims alternatively or hypothetically and rely on inconsistent theories rather than to elect a single legal theory.

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a claimant to pursue multiple theories for a single claim without choosing among them.

Smedsrud v. Powell · filed 2002-11-12(E)(2)

The pleader of a claim may invoke and advance all affordable theories in a single trial. 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(E)(2); Howell v. James, 1991 OK 47, ¶¶ 6-14, 818 P.2d 444, 446-448. With Oklahoma's adoption of the federal notice-pleading regime, no plaintiff (or third-party plaintiff or counterclaimant) may be-compelled to make a choice among multiple theories pressed in prosecuting a single claim.

Section 2008(E)(2) permits a party to plead and rely on inconsistent facts, theories, claims, and defenses; judicial estoppel does not interfere with that right.

Bank of the Wichitas v. Ledford · filed 2006-10-10(E)(2)

Judicial estoppel applies only when a party succeeds in showing that his opponent previously took an inconsistent position that was accepted by the court. ... It does not interfere with a party's statutory right to plead and rely on inconsistent facts, theories, claims, and defenses as authorized by the provisions of 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(E)(2).

Section 2008(e)(2) allows a litigant to plead inconsistent theories and pursue them through trial, subject to the rule against double recovery.

Fox v. Mize · filed 2018-09-18(e)(2)

The Plaintiff may "invoke and advance all affordable theories in a single trial." ... 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(e)(2) (allowing a litigant "not only to plead inconsistently, but also be allowed to rely on inconsistent theories or defenses throughout trial " (emphasis added) ).

Section 2008(D) requires proof of the amount of unliquidated damages before a default judgment is entered.

Reed v. Scott · filed 1991-11-05(D)

The federal jurisprudence, like our own, first under § 306 and now under § 2008(D), requires the production of proof as to the amount of unliquidated damages before rendition of a default judgment.

Section 2008(D) treats unanswered allegations as admitted except allegations about the amount of damages; unliquidated damages must be proved before a default judgment is entered.

Razorsoft, Inc. v. Maktal, Inc. · filed 1995-09-12(D)

The court’s finding that the Appellants’ default constituted an admission of the substantial allegations in the petition cannot be understood to apply to an assessment of damages, unliquidated at the time of the petition. Production of proof as to amount of unliquidated damages is required before a default judgment is rendered.

Section 2008(D) treats allegations requiring a responsive pleading as admitted when not denied, except allegations about the amount of damages.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Todd · filed 1992-06-09(D)

Such holding appears consistent with the current Oklahoma Pleading Code which provides at 12 O.S. 1991, § 2008(D), averments not denied in a responsive pleading are admitted where a responsive pleading is required, except for amount of damages.

Section 2008(D) treats an allegation as admitted when the answer does not deny it.

Shanbour v. Phillips 66 Natural Gas Co. · filed 1993-11-18(D)

This allegation was not denied in the answer. Accordingly, it is admitted.

Section 2008(D) treats averments in pleadings requiring a response as admitted when they are not denied; it does not apply to motions.

State v. Torres · filed 2004-02-24(D)

Pleadings require an answer, 12 O.S.2008(B); motions do not. Averments in pleadings to which a responsive pleading is required are admitted when not denied. 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(D).

Section 2008(D) treats an allegation requiring a response as admitted when the responding party fails to deny it, except an allegation about the amount of damages.

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger · filed 2004-06-08(D)

The provisions of 12 O.S.2001 § 2008(D) state that failure to deny an averment in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, results in the admission of the uncontroyerted averment.

Section 2008(D) does not treat an unanswered allegation about the amount of unliquidated damages as admitted; a default judgment awarding those damages requires supporting evidence.

SIT v. Tulsa Turbine Engines & Aircraft, LLC · filed 2013-10-10(D)

Based on this jurisprudence, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to assess the damages stated in this default judgment without hearing and considering evidence to support those damages.

Section 2008(D) excludes the amount of damages from allegations admitted by a failure to deny; a court must hear evidence before fixing damages in a default judgment.

PHIL BOEVERS ENTERPRISES v. BECK · filed 2023-11-09(D)

Even if the answer were untimely filed, default judgment was still inappropriate pursuant to 12 O.S. § 688 and 12 O.S. § 2008(D) without first holding a hearing on damages with notice to the opposing party. ... Based on this law, the trial court could not assess damages sought in the petition and enter a default judgment for those damages without first hearing and considering evidence proving those damages, even if tort liability for injury or loss has been established by default or otherwise.

Section 2008(E)(1)’s pleading rules do not govern a will contest subject to the probate code’s special pleading requirements.

Daly v. Stephenson · filed 1994-02-01(E)(1)

We hold it does not apply because involved here is a special area of law, namely probate, which is governed by its own statutory procedural code.