105.692 Right
to continued use of land following permitted use; presumption of dedication or
other rights. (1)
An owner of land who either directly or indirectly permits any person to use
the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of
special forest products does not give that person or any other person a right
to continued use of the land for those purposes without the consent of the
owner.
(2) The fact that
an owner of land allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes,
gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products without
posting, fencing or otherwise restricting use of the land does not raise a
presumption that the landowner intended to dedicate or otherwise give over to
the public the right to continued use of the land.
(3) Nothing in
this section shall be construed to diminish or divert any public right to use
land for recreational purposes acquired by dedication, prescription, grant,
custom or otherwise existing before October 5, 1973.
(4) Nothing in
this section shall be construed to diminish or divert any public right to use
land for woodcutting acquired by dedication, prescription, grant, custom or
otherwise existing before October 3, 1979. [1995 c.456 §5; 2009 c.532 §5]
105.693 [1979 c.434 §5; repealed by 1995
c.456 §9]
105.695 [1979 c.434 §6; repealed by 1995
c.456 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 2002–2015 · leading case:
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “ORS 105.692(2), for example, provides, in part: “The fact that an owner of land allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes * * * does not raise a presumption that the landowner intended to dedicate or otherwise give over to the public the right to continued use…”
Wels v. Hippe, 347 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Statutory bar based on recreational use Before turning to the merits of defendants’ primary arguments, we first address and reject defendants’ contention that a statute, ORS 105.692 (1), barred the establishment *793 of a prescriptive easement.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.692(1): 1 case
Wels v. Hippe, 347 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“Statutory bar based on recreational use Before turning to the merits of defendants’ primary arguments, we first address and reject defendants’ contention that a statute, ORS 105.692 (1), barred the establishment *793 of a prescriptive easement.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.692(2): 1 case
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 105.692(2), for example, provides, in part: “The fact that an owner of land allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes * * * does not raise a presumption that the landowner intended to dedicate or otherwise give over to the public the right to continued use…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.692(3): 1 case
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 105.692(2), for example, provides, in part: “The fact that an owner of land allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes * * * does not raise a presumption that the landowner intended to dedicate or otherwise give over to the public the right to continued use…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.692(4): 1 case
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 105.692(2), for example, provides, in part: “The fact that an owner of land allows the public to use the land for recreational purposes * * * does not raise a presumption that the landowner intended to dedicate or otherwise give over to the public the right to continued use…”
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.