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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.030 (2026)

How issues are tried

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

      136.030 How issues are tried. An issue of law shall be tried by the judge of the court and an issue of fact by a jury of the county in which the action is triable. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §224]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: State v. Upton, 125 P.3d 713 (Or. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Upton, 125 P.3d 713 (Or. 2005). · cites it 5× “ORS 136.030 and ORS 136.320 provide that questions of fact are for the jury.”
Hunters Ridge Condo. Ass'n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLC, 395 P.3d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “, ORS 136.030 (“An issue of law shall be tried by the judge of the court and an issue of fact by a jury of the county in which the action is triable.”
State v. Zaldana-Mendoza, 450 P.3d 983 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Applying the text, context, and history of Article I, section 11’s jury-trial right, we conclude that a court can- not reject an offer of evidence regarding the victim’s alleged past sexual behavior solely because it finds that evidence not credible.”
Billington v. Polk Cnty., 703 P.2d 232 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “Such determination shall not be based upon the difference in the value of the land.”
Behnke v. Jordan, 550 P.2d 736 (Or. 1976). · cites it 2× “" In 1959, and at present, ORS 136.030 provided that in a trial for a violation of a state statute "An issue of law shall be tried by the court and an issue of fact by a jury of the county in which the action is triable.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “Petitioners’ remaining assignment attacks LCDC’s and the trial court’s approval of section 136.030(c)(4) of the zoning ordinance.”
State v. Davis, 335 P.3d 1266 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Washington, 542 US 296, 313 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004) (under the Sixth Amendment, “every defendant has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment” (emphasis in original)); see also ORS 136.030 (“An issue…”
State v. Barbero, 442 P.3d 224 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “2 ORS 136.030 describes broadly how issues are tried in criminal *230 trials: "An issue of law shall be tried by the judge of the court and an issue of fact by a jury of the county in which the action is triable.”
Valley & Siletz R.R. v. Laudahl, 642 P.2d 337 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “Sections 136.030, 136.010 and 136.030(B) of the Polk County Ordinance required the county to determine that the property was generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock.”
State v. Wick, 173 P.3d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “As a result of multiple continuances, defendant ultimately was sentenced after the effective date of the legislation. The state provided the sentencing *411 memorandum to defendant 11 days after the effective date of SB 528.”
State v. Middleton, 611 P.2d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Rather, defendant contends that the court erred in holding him in contempt in front of the jury.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.030(c)(4) — 1 case
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Petitioners’ remaining assignment attacks LCDC’s and the trial court’s approval of section 136.030(c)(4) of the zoning ordinance.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.030(c)(5) — 1 case
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 714 P.2d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Petitioners’ remaining assignment attacks LCDC’s and the trial court’s approval of section 136.030(c)(4) of the zoning ordinance.”
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.