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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 162.055 to 162.425

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

      162.055 Definitions for ORS 162.055 to 162.425. As used in ORS 162.055 to 162.425 and 162.465, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Benefit” means gain or advantage to the beneficiary or to a third person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary.

      (2) “Material” means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction. Whether a false statement is “material” in a given factual situation is a question of law.

      (3) “Statement” means any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the representation.

      (4) “Sworn statement” means any statement that attests to the truth of what is stated and that is knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation or by declaration under penalty of perjury as described in ORCP 1 E.

      (5) “Unsworn declaration” has the meaning given that term in ORS 194.805. [1971 c.743 §182; 1981 c.892 §90; 2003 c.194 §4; 2013 c.218 §18]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994). · cites it 16× “ORS 162.055(4) defines the term "sworn statement" to mean "any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.”
Much v. Doe, 493 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “Consequently, the CCP proposed amend- ments to ORS 162.055(4), which defines a “sworn state- ment,” as that term is used in Oregon’s perjury statute, Cite as 311 Or App 652 (2021) 671 ORS 162.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “" ORS 162.055(1). [9] We do not understand defendants to dispute that they enjoy certain "benefits" due to their status as, respectively, a political committee (OTU-PAC) or a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation (OTU-EF).”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Morin, 878 P.2d 393 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “” ORS 162.055(4) defines sworn statement to mean “any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.”
State v. Rodda, 642 P.2d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “415 are found in ORS 162.055, which provides: “(1) ‘Benefit’ means gain or advantage to the beneficiary or to a third person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary.”
State v. Wood, 678 P.2d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “That was enough under ORS 162.055 to show materiality. Whether those statements were false, however, must be redetermined.”
State v. Dendurent, 669 P.2d 361 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “445(4) (h) now provides that the petition for diversion must include “a sworn statement, as defined in ORS 162.055, by the defendant certifying that the defendant meets the criteria set out in ORS 484.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 189 P.3d 9 (Or. 2008). “” ORS162.055(1). The statutes provide no definition of “application,” but, as the Court of Appeals noted, “application” commonly means an “ ‘appeal; request; [or a] petition * * *.”
State v. Carr, 863 P.2d 1316 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “” ORS 162.055(4). (Emphasis supplied.) Although defendant was not administered a formal oath, there is evidence that he signed the jurat portion of the notice where he affirmatively attested that “I have knowledge of the facts therein set forth” and that “all statements made in…”
State v. Greenlaw, 618 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 162.055(2). The evidence in this case establishes that defendant’s false sworn statement was given at a "motion to suppress” hearing prior to trial in the case of State v.”
State v. Darnell, 619 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “” "Material” is defined in ORS 162.055(2) as follows: " 'Material’ means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction.”
State v. Hayes, 843 P.2d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “” ORS 162.055(3) defines a “statement” as “any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055(1) — 3 cases
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “" ORS 162.055(1). [9] We do not understand defendants to dispute that they enjoy certain "benefits" due to their status as, respectively, a political committee (OTU-PAC) or a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation (OTU-EF).”
State v. Rodda, 642 P.2d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “415 are found in ORS 162.055, which provides: “(1) ‘Benefit’ means gain or advantage to the beneficiary or to a third person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 189 P.3d 9 (Or. 2008). “” ORS162.055(1). The statutes provide no definition of “application,” but, as the Court of Appeals noted, “application” commonly means an “ ‘appeal; request; [or a] petition * * *.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055(2) — 6 cases
State v. Wood, 678 P.2d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “That was enough under ORS 162.055 to show materiality. Whether those statements were false, however, must be redetermined.”
State v. Greenlaw, 618 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 162.055(2). The evidence in this case establishes that defendant’s false sworn statement was given at a "motion to suppress” hearing prior to trial in the case of State v.”
State v. Darnell, 619 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “” "Material” is defined in ORS 162.055(2) as follows: " 'Material’ means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction.”
State v. Ray, 584 P.2d 366 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Romero, 854 P.2d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055(3) — 2 cases
State v. Hayes, 843 P.2d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” ORS 162.055(3) defines a “statement” as “any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the…”
State v. Shoemaker, 550 P.2d 1396 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055(4) — 6 cases
State v. Carr, 877 P.2d 1192 (Or. 1994). “ORS 162.055(4) defines the term "sworn statement" to mean "any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.”
Much v. Doe, 493 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Consequently, the CCP proposed amend- ments to ORS 162.055(4), which defines a “sworn state- ment,” as that term is used in Oregon’s perjury statute, Cite as 311 Or App 652 (2021) 671 ORS 162.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Morin, 878 P.2d 393 (Or. 1994). “” ORS 162.055(4) defines sworn statement to mean “any statement knowingly given under any form of oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated.”
State v. Carr, 863 P.2d 1316 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “” ORS 162.055(4). (Emphasis supplied.) Although defendant was not administered a formal oath, there is evidence that he signed the jurat portion of the notice where he affirmatively attested that “I have knowledge of the facts therein set forth” and that “all statements made in…”
State v. Flamer, 633 P.2d 860 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.055(5) — 1 case
Much v. Doe, 493 P.3d 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Consequently, the CCP proposed amend- ments to ORS 162.055(4), which defines a “sworn state- ment,” as that term is used in Oregon’s perjury statute, Cite as 311 Or App 652 (2021) 671 ORS 162.”
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.