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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 108.010 (2026)

Removal of spouse’s civil disabilities; spouse’s civil rights same as other spouse’s

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

      108.010 Removal of spouse’s civil disabilities; spouse’s civil rights same as other spouse’s. (1) All laws that impose or recognize civil disabilities upon a spouse in a marriage that are not imposed upon or recognized as existing with respect to the other spouse are hereby repealed.

      (2) All civil rights belonging to a spouse in a marriage not conferred upon the other spouse prior to June 14, 1941, or that the other spouse does not have at common law, are hereby conferred upon the other spouse, including, but not limited to, the right of action for loss of consortium of the spouse. [Amended by 2015 c.629 §14]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1955–1994 · leading case: Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274 (1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274 (1980). · cites it 2× “1979); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 108.010 (1975); Hopkins v.”
Casey v. Manson Constr. & Eng'g Co., 428 P.2d 898 (Or. 1967). · cites it 4× “Washington adheres to the common law rule which denies to the wife a right of action for loss of consortium resulting from a negligent injury to her husband: Ash v.”
Erwin v. Thomas, 506 P.2d 494 (Or. 1973). · cites it 4× “Oregon allows such an action, ORS 108.010. The issue is whether Oregon law or Washington law is applicable.”
Ellis v. Fallert, 307 P.2d 283 (Or. 1957). · cites it 5× “” For the purposes of this case we shall assume that if plaintiff’s husband was not under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as stipulated, she would have a cause of action against the defendants for the negligent injury to her husband, resulting in loss of consortium, and that…”
Ross v. Cuthbert, 397 P.2d 529 (Or. 1964). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff assigns as error the order of the trial court overruling her demurrer to defendant's separate answer and affirmative defense.”
Romero v. Byers, 872 P.2d 840 (N.M. 1994). “43, § 214 ( West 1990 ); Oregon, Or.Rev.Stat. § 108.010 (1989). 2 . See, e.”
Wolff v. Du Puis, 378 P.2d 707 (Or. 1963). “We have observed that the statutory right (ORS 108.010) of a wife to sue for loss of consortium is nothing more nor less than the equivalent of the common-law right of the husband to bring an action per quod consortium *320 amisit.”
Smith v. Smith, 287 P.2d 572 (Or. 1955). “*293 This portion of the statute remained on the books until the adoption of the Oregon Revised Statutes from which it was omitted “as unnecessary in view of the removal of a wife’s civil disabilities by OCLA 63-202 [ORS 108.010]”. Reviser's Notes, ch 108, p 797.”
Moser v. Hampton, 679 P.2d 1379 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “[2] See ORS 108.010, et seq; see also Oregon Constitution, Art.”
Kinney v. S. Pac. Co., 375 P.2d 418 (Or. 1962). “The plaintiff does not raise the issue as to whether the plaintiff’s husband’s employment at the time of injury was in fact in the furtherance of interstate as distinguished from intrastate commerce, but argues that a finding that plaintiff’s husband’s employment was in…”
Igneri v. CIE. De Transports Oceaniques, 207 F. Supp. 236 (E.D.N.Y 1962). “71 ; see also Ore.Rev.Stat. § 108.010 (1955). . While this historical background has been questioned in 61 Col.”
State ex rel. Bell v. Bell, 725 P.2d 938 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “445 or the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, of any order or decree entered under ORS 108.010 to 108.550 or ORS chapter 107, 109, 110, 416 or 419.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.