Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.310 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 106.300 to 106.340

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      106.310 Definitions for ORS 106.300 to 106.340. As used in ORS 106.300 to 106.340 (Oregon Family Fairness Act):

      (1) “Domestic partnership” means a civil contract described in ORS 106.300 to 106.340 entered into in person between two individuals who are at least 18 years of age, who are otherwise capable and at least one of whom is a resident of Oregon.

      (2) “Partner” means an individual joined in a domestic partnership. [2007 c.99 §3; 2009 c.561 §1; 2023 c.20 §1]

 

      Note: See note under 106.300.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case: State v. Priester, 530 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Priester, 530 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Although it is highly unlikely that the condition was intended to apply only to same-sex partners, and thus unlikely that the probation condition tracks the definition in ORS 106.310, that does not end the vagueness inquiry.”
Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2010). “ORS 106.310(1); ORS 106.325. They may do so by filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the county clerk.”
Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon), 557 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D. Or. 2016). · cites it 2× “ORS 106.310(1); ORS 106.325. They may do so by filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the county clerk.”
State v. Priester, No. A173289 (Or. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2023). · cites it 2× “Although it is highly unlikely that the condition was intended to apply only to same-sex partners, and thus unlikely that the probation condition tracks the definition in ORS 106.310, that does not end the vagueness inquiry.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.310(1): 4 cases
State v. Priester, 530 P.3d 118 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Although it is highly unlikely that the condition was intended to apply only to same-sex partners, and thus unlikely that the probation condition tracks the definition in ORS 106.310, that does not end the vagueness inquiry.”
Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2010). “ORS 106.310(1); ORS 106.325. They may do so by filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the county clerk.”
Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon), 557 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D. Or. 2016). “ORS 106.310(1); ORS 106.325. They may do so by filing a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the county clerk.”
State v. Priester, No. A173289 (Or. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2023). “Although it is highly unlikely that the condition was intended to apply only to same-sex partners, and thus unlikely that the probation condition tracks the definition in ORS 106.310, that does not end the vagueness inquiry.”
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.