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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340 (2026)

Certain privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities granted or imposed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      106.340 Certain privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities granted or imposed. (1) Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.

      (2) Any responsibility imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law on an individual because the individual is or was married, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, on an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.

      (3) Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to or on a spouse with respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to or on a partner with respect to a child of either of the partners.

      (4) Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to or on a former or surviving spouse with respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to or on a former or surviving partner with respect to a child of either of the partners.

      (5) Many of the laws of this state are intertwined with federal law, and the Legislative Assembly recognizes that it does not have the jurisdiction to control federal laws or the privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities related to federal laws.

      (6) ORS 106.300 to 106.340 do not require the extension of any benefit under ORS chapter 238 or 238A, or under any other retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan.

      (7) ORS 106.300 to 106.340 do not require the extension of any benefit under any employee benefit plan that is subject to federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

      (8) For purposes of administering Oregon tax laws, partners in a domestic partnership, surviving partners in a domestic partnership and the children of partners in a domestic partnership have the same privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities as are granted to or imposed on spouses in a marriage, surviving spouses and their children. [2007 c.99 §9; 2023 c.20 §2]

 

      Note: See note under 106.300.

 

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2022 · leading case: Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014). · cites it 3× “Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 106.340(1)-(4). The plaintiffs submit that time has tarnished the promise of domestic partnerships.”
Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon), 557 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D. Or. 2016). · cites it 6× “ORS 106.340. The domestic partnership law was intended to go into effect January 1, 2008, but because of a court challenge, did not go into effect until February 4, 2008.”
Staveland & Fisher, 455 P.3d 510 (Or. 2019). “ORS 106.340 (explaining applicability of laws relating to marriage to registered domestic partnerships).”
Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Or. 2010). “ORS 106.340. The domestic partnership law was intended to go into effect January 1, 2008, but because of a court challenge, did not go into effect until February 4, 2008.”
Weatherspoon & Stevens, 515 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 106.340(8) (explaining appli- cability of laws relating to marriage to registered domestic partnerships).”
In the Matter of Margaret Fonberg (9th Cir. 2013). “Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340 (1). 1 Fonberg served as a law clerk in the District of Oregon from May 2009 to May 18, 2013.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340(1) — 2 cases
Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014). “Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 106.340(1)-(4). The plaintiffs submit that time has tarnished the promise of domestic partnerships.”
Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon), 557 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D. Or. 2016). “ORS 106.340. The domestic partnership law was intended to go into effect January 1, 2008, but because of a court challenge, did not go into effect until February 4, 2008.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340(3) — 1 case
Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon), 557 B.R. 801 (Bankr. D. Or. 2016). “ORS 106.340. The domestic partnership law was intended to go into effect January 1, 2008, but because of a court challenge, did not go into effect until February 4, 2008.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340(6) — 1 case
Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014). “Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 106.340(1)-(4). The plaintiffs submit that time has tarnished the promise of domestic partnerships.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.340(8) — 1 case
Weatherspoon & Stevens, 515 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ORS 106.340(8) (explaining appli- cability of laws relating to marriage to registered domestic partnerships).”
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.