The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon terms as may be just; provided, that if a party or his attorney of record is serving as a member of the Legislature or the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, or within thirty (30) days after an adjournment of a session of the Legislature, such fact shall constitute cause for continuance of the case, and it is mandatory that the court shall grant such continuance upon motion whether such attorney may have been employed before or during the session of the Legislature, and the court shall have no power to exercise its discretion as to the granting of such continuance, and all motions, demurrers and preliminary matters to be heard by the court, the refusal to grant which shall constitute error, and entitle such party to a new trial as a matter of right. When a continuance is granted on account of the absence of evidence, it shall be at the cost of the party making the application unless the court otherwise order. And when any litigant has given notice of appeal from any judgment of any court of record in this state to the Supreme Court or Criminal Court of Appeals and the time for doing any act to perfect such appeal has, or does hereafter lapse during the session of the Legislature, whether regular or special, and the said litigant is a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, of the State of Oklahoma, in such session, or his attorney of record is such member, such litigant or attorney shall have such time after the adjournment of the session of the Legislature to perform such act and complete his appeal as he had at the commencement of the session of the Legislature, of which he or his attorney of record was a member, and all acts done in the perfection of such appeals shall be as valid as if done within the time provided.
§ 667.Continuances - Power to Grant - Costs - Continuances and Appeals When Member of Legislature Is Party Or Attorney
Chapter 11: Trial · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified August 3, 2026
In one sentenceSection 667 lets a court continue a case for good cause on just terms, requires a continuance when a party or attorney of record is a sitting Legislature member near a session, and extends a similarly situated litigant's appeal deadline by the session's length.
Full Text of § 667
Amendment History
R.L. 1910, § 5044; Amended by Laws 1915, SB 469, c. 236, p. 556, § 1, emerg. eff. 3/22/1915; Amended by Laws 1919, HB 449, c. 263, p. 374, § 1, emerg. eff. 4/3/1919; Amended by Laws 1935, HB 272, p. 2, § 1, emerg. eff. 4/3/1935; Amended by Laws 1937, SB 474, p. 1, § 1, emerg. eff. 5/10/1937; Amended by Laws 1955, HB 903, p. 134, § 1.
Plain-English Summary
The baseline rule is ordinary and familiar: a court may continue an action at any stage of the case, for good cause, on terms it finds just. Where the continuance comes from a party's need for absent evidence, the cost falls on the party who asked for it, unless the court orders otherwise.
Then the section adds something unusual. If a party or the attorney of record is serving in the Legislature, sitting as a court of impeachment, or is within thirty days after a legislative session's adjournment, that fact alone is cause for a continuance. The statute's text makes the continuance mandatory, whether the attorney took the case before or during the session, and says the court has no discretion to refuse; a court that denies it, the text says, commits error entitling the party to a new trial as a matter of right.
Oklahoma courts haven't let that mandatory language stand unqualified. In Booze v. District Court of Lincoln County, 1961 OK CR 98, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that stripping judges of all discretion over the legislative continuance conflicts with the separation of powers the Oklahoma Constitution requires, while still directing trial courts to grant the continuance in good faith to a legislator-litigant or legislator-attorney with a real conflict.
The section closes with an appeal-deadline extension: a litigant, or that litigant's attorney of record, who is a sitting member of the Legislature and whose time to perfect an appeal lapses during a legislative session gets the same amount of time after adjournment to finish the appeal that remained when the session began, and anything done to complete the appeal within that extended window counts as if it had been done on time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court grant a continuance just because a party needs more time?
Yes, for good cause shown, at any stage of the proceedings, on terms the court finds just.
Does a lawyer serving in the Legislature get an automatic continuance?
The statute's text says yes, calling it mandatory cause for continuance whether the attorney took the case before or during the session, and denies the court discretion to refuse it.
Have courts enforced that continuance as mandatory, with no judicial discretion?
No, in Booze v. District Court of Lincoln County, 1961 OK CR 98, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that removing all judicial discretion over the continuance violates separation of powers, though it directed courts to grant the continuance in good faith to a legitimate legislator-litigant or legislator-attorney.
Who pays the cost of a continuance granted for absent evidence?
The party who asked for it, unless the court orders otherwise.
What happens to my appeal deadline if I'm a legislator and the Legislature is in session?
If your time to perfect the appeal lapses during the session and you or your attorney of record is a sitting member, you get the same amount of time after adjournment to finish it that remained when the session started.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes, enacted by the Oklahoma Legislature.
Last verified August 3, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: Oklahoma legislative continuance12 O.S. § 667continuance member of Legislature attorneyBooze v. District Court continuance separation of powers