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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 111.235 (2026)

Filing objections to petition or motion

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

      111.235 Filing objections to petition or motion. (1) Any interested person or the personal representative may file a written objection to a petition or motion previously filed.

      (2) An objection filed under this section must:

      (a) Include a plain and concise statement of the basis for the objection;

      (b) Be served on the persons described in ORS 111.215 (2); and

      (c) Be filed on or before the final date for the filing of objections to the petition or motion.

      (3) If no objections are filed before the final date for the filing of objections to the petition or motion, or if all filed objections are withdrawn, the court may sign the proposed order or judgment without further notice. [1969 c.591 §15; 2021 c.282 §12]

 

      111.240 [Repealed by 1957 c.411 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Beneficial Oregon Inc. v. Bivins, 339 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beneficial Oregon Inc. v. Bivins, 339 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “Arguing otherwise, defendants assert that ORS 111.235 means that the trial court should have vacated the judgment absent a timely objection from plaintiff.”
Beneficial Oregon Inc. v. Bivins, 339 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “Arguing otherwise, defendants assert that ORS 111.235 means that the trial court should have vacated the judgment absent a timely objection from plaintiff.”
Adams v. West Coast Trust, 338 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Petitioners continue to assert that those objections were timely under ORS 111.235. The probate court was correct in rejecting the June 25 objections as untimely.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 111.235(3): 2 cases
Beneficial Oregon Inc. v. Bivins, 339 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Arguing otherwise, defendants assert that ORS 111.235 means that the trial court should have vacated the judgment absent a timely objection from plaintiff.”
Beneficial Oregon Inc. v. Bivins, 339 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Arguing otherwise, defendants assert that ORS 111.235 means that the trial court should have vacated the judgment absent a timely objection from plaintiff.”
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.