Guide
Oklahoma Authorities Index: Civil and Criminal Appeals
On this page3 sections
Oklahoma civil appellate briefing is not simply a statewide alphabetical table. Supreme Court Rule 1.11(d) requires a subject index at the front of every brief, with authorities organized under the separate propositions. The Court of Criminal Appeals has separate briefing rules: do not transplant the civil arrangement into a criminal filing.
Extract your table of authorities in standard format, review the result, and export editable Word text for the required index. Brief Authority does not have an Oklahoma-specific preset. In a civil appeal, the exported authorities list is preparation material for the proposition-based index, not an automatic replacement for it.
The civil requirement: authorities belong under propositions
“A subject index shall be attached to the front of every brief.” The rule further requires authorities “with reference to the pages in the brief where they are cited” to be “set forth under each proposition respectively.” — Supreme Court Rule 1.11(d), Exhibit B to 2022 OK 93
The index must concisely state or classify the questions discussed. Each question or principle of law for which contention is made is separately numbered and clearly stated. This links the index to Rule 1.11(f)’s separate-propositions organization of the argument. A conventional table headed Cases, Statutes and Other Authorities can identify what was cited, but it does not itself supply the proposition structure or the discussion-page references required by (d). Build the argument’s final proposition headings first, then construct the index from those headings and their authorities.
| Index component | Evidence | What to prepare |
|---|---|---|
| Front position | Rule 1.11(d) | Attach the subject index to the front of the brief. |
| Numbered proposition | Rule 1.11(d), (f) | Use the concise question or legal principle corresponding to that argument. |
| Proposition discussion pages | Rule 1.11(d) | Identify the brief pages where the classification is discussed. |
| Cases under the proposition | Rule 1.11(d) | Arrange cases alphabetically within the relevant proposition. |
| Textbooks and statutes | Rule 1.11(d) | Include the cited authorities under their corresponding proposition. |
| Authority references | Rule 1.11(d) | Supply pages where the authority is cited, separate from the proposition’s discussion range. |
For example, if the same authority supports two propositions, its relationship to both must remain visible when you assemble the index. Do not merge away that organization merely because the generator correctly consolidates the underlying citation identity. If a proposition occupies hypothetical pages 6–10 and an authority appears only on hypothetical pages 7 and 9, those are two different kinds of references. This is an indexing illustration, not a local case citation or a filing-ready sample.
Civil, criminal and trial filings are different scopes
The source read here is the Supreme Court’s Rule 1.11 amendment order and clean attached rule. Its civil appellate scope includes the Supreme Court and Court of Civil Appeals. The rule also addresses original-jurisdiction briefs in several provisions, but other original-action requirements still need their own review. It is not evidence that every district-court motion memorandum must use this index.
For a criminal appeal, begin with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ Rule 3.5, not Supreme Court Rule 1.11(d). Official OCCA and OSCN retrieval attempts timed out. Consequently, this page does not quote Rule 3.5 or certify its current table organization, reply coverage, citation conventions or form. The civil index instructions above remain useful and sourced; criminal filers must obtain the governing text before deciding whether the standard exported table needs a different arrangement.
PDF extraction, review and Word assembly
- Finish the propositions. Save a PDF of the actual draft and keep its matching DOCX. Mark the printed page at which each proposition begins and ends; a PDF viewer’s sheet counter may differ.
- Extract in standard format. Open the Table of Authorities generator. Confirm the actual court/settings because detected courts or sample files can override the entry choice.
- Review identities and locations. Check every complete citation, short form, Id. occurrence and footnote reference against the PDF. The tool does not restyle Oklahoma citations or decide which argument a case supports.
- Export editable text. PDF-only downloads an editable Word table. A matching Word file plus text-layer PDF can insert ordinary table text. For a civil subject index, manually organize the reviewed entries under the appropriate propositions and add discussion-page references.
- Check final pagination. Re-export after index insertion and later changes. Recheck both the authority references and each proposition’s discussion pages in the assembled brief; those values can move independently.
DOCX-only is a separate Word-field route that requires Word for Windows to build and update the table. The PDF routes produce ordinary editable table text. None of these routes formats the entire brief, creates e-filing bookmarks, or guarantees that the proposition-based index meets a particular filing order. Separately review citation form and the court’s current form rules.
Frequently asked
Will one alphabetical table satisfy the civil rule?
Not by itself. Rule 1.11(d) requires a subject index with numbered questions or principles and the authorities under each proposition, plus both discussion and citation page references.
Does the civil subject index apply only to the opening brief?
The text says every brief. The same order’s Rule 1.11(b) discusses brief-in-chief, answer and reply briefs; prepare the index for the specific brief rather than reuse another party’s references.
Should I use the same layout in a criminal appeal?
Do not assume so. Criminal briefing is governed separately by OCCA Rule 3.5. Its official full text was inaccessible during this review, so no current criminal layout is represented as verified here.
Can passim replace the cited brief pages?
The civil provision requires references to pages and supplies no express passim permission. Specific page lists preserve the connection between authority and proposition; check current instructions before any shorthand.
Is an Oklahoma preset available?
No. The linked generator uses standard format. It can prepare a reviewed authorities list, but you must assemble the required civil subject index and separately check the governing court rules.
Sources, editions and access limits
- 2022 OK 93: In re Amendment of Rule 1.11, Oklahoma Supreme CourtCourt-issued order dated and effective November 14, 2022; Exhibit B supplies complete Rule 1.11. Read on 2026-10-14 through the Oklahoma Bar Association Courts & More copy, not a live official consolidation.okcourtsandmore.org
- Oklahoma official court-rule publisher: Supreme Court Rule 1.11403 response and browser challenge on 2026-10-14; not used as evidence of rule wording. Confirm later amendments before filing.govt.westlaw.com
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 3.5Official court URL; retrieval timed out, as did alternate OCCA and OSCN sources. Criminal rule text and current form requirements remain unverified here.okcca.net
BriefAuthority · free
No account · no upload