12 Okla. Stat. § 95

Section 95(A)(3) gives most fraud claims a two-year limitations period that begins when the fraud is discovered.

Pizza Inn Inc v. Odetallah · filed 2022-05-25(A)(3)

Title 12, § 95 itself expressly provides that for “an action for relief on the ground of fraud,” the “cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have ... accrued until the discovery of the fraud.”

Section 95(A)(3) gives a fraud claimant two years from when reasonable diligence would have uncovered the fraud.

First v. Rolling Plains Implement · filed 2024-07-11(A)(3)

Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims does not begin until the fraud is discovered, i.e., “when, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, it could have or should have been discovered.”

Section 95(A) governs limitation periods for actions other than real property actions, including contract and tort claims.

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

Section 93 governs "[l]imitations of real actions," id. § 93; while section 95 governs the "[l]imitation of other actions" like claims based upon written contracts, unwritten contracts, trespass upon real property, conversion of personal property, personal injury, fraud, libel, slander, assault, battery, etc., see id. § 95(A) (listing examples of the types of claims mentioned in the first five of twelve paragraphs under subsection A).

Section 95 sets applicable limitation periods of no more than three years for these claims.

STOCKBRIDGE ENERGY, LLC v. TAYLOR · filed 2015-10-06(A)(2)-(A)(3)

Here, Stockbridge's amendment of the petition more than four years after the initial dismissal exceeds the one-year savings clause as well as the statutes of limitation applicable to the claims in question, the largest of which would have been three years.

Section 95 provides two years for tort claims, three years for oral contract claims, and five years for written contract claims; a written agreement that states only an attorney’s ordinary duty of care does not support the five-year period.

Ward v. Fisher · filed 2024-06-12

In Oklahoma, actions based on torts such as negligence are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, those based on oral contracts are subject to a three-year statute, and those based on written contracts are subject to a five-year statute. 12 O.S. § 95. ... The written engagement letter does not provide grounds for a five-year contract-based statute of limitations.

Section 95(A)(3) sets a two-year limit for fraud, constructive fraud, and deceit claims; section 95(A)(2) sets a three-year limit for unjust enrichment, breach of oral contract, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices claims.

Chalfant v. Tubb · filed 2006-08-28(A)(2), (A)(3)

The statute of limitations for fraud, constructive fraud, and deceit is two years under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(3), and the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment, breach of oral contract, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices is three years under section 95(A)(2).

Section 95(3)’s two-year limitations period governs Title IX claims in Oklahoma.

Jane Does 1-13 and 15-17 v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation of the State of Oklahoma · filed 2025-02-13(3)

Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims are governed by Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations.

Section 95’s limitations periods begin to run when filing a deed gives grantors constructive notice of an alleged failure to reserve mineral interests.

CALVERT v. SWINFORD · filed 2016-10-11

The grantors claims are barred by the statute of limitations because their actions began to accrue when the deed, which allegedly neglected to reserve mineral interests, was filed with the county clerk.

Section 95(A)(11)’s limitations period yields to the OGTCA provisions applicable to claims against private correctional contractors.

Neal v. Sheriff of Canadian County · filed 2025-02-20(A)(11)

Thus, because this statute “applies the notice provisions of the OGTCA to lawsuits brought by prisoners or former prisoners against private correctional facilities,”63 and extends to “any claim against a private correctional contractor and its employees for actions taken pursuant to or in connection with a governmental contract,”64 the OGTCA’s provisions are controlling in this case.

Section 95(A)(11)'s one-year limitation does not govern inmate-related tort claims against a private correctional healthcare provider when the GTCA controls.

Miles v. Rogers County Board of Commissioners · filed 2025-05-16(A)(11)

Turn Key argues that 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(11) bars Plaintiff's state law claims (Dkt. No. 16 at 20), but the GTCA supersedes Oklahoma state law.