Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.040 (2026)

Severability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

174.040 Severability. It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in force unless:

(1) The statute provides otherwise;

(2) The remaining parts are so essentially and inseparably connected with and dependent upon the unconstitutional part that it is apparent that the remaining parts would not have been enacted without the unconstitutional part; or

(3) The remaining parts, standing alone, are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent.

174.050 [Repealed by 1983 c.740 §41]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 63 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 911 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 911 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “[2] ORS 174.040, for example, codifies a longstanding, judicially-created rule regarding the severability of statutes.”

Moro v. State of Oregon, 351 P.3d 1 (Or. 2015). · cites it 4× “36 Additionally, we hold that the supplemental pay- ments provided for in SB 861 cannot be severed from the unconstitutional application of SB 861 and are, therefore, void in whole, even though the supplemental payment provi- sion itself is not unconstitutional.”

State v. Dilts, 103 P.3d 95 (Or. 2004). · cites it 2× “If that mandatory provision is severed, the state asserts, the guidelines would not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.”

State v. Gornick, 102 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “10 ORS 174.040 provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in force unless: “(1) The statute provides otherwise; “(2) The…”

Eckles v. State of Oregon, 760 P.2d 846 (Or. 1988). · cites it 2× “[19] Although there is no severability provision in the Transfer Act, the legislature could not have intended to make the enactment of section two contingent upon the validity of section four.”

Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 132 P.3d 5 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d 701 (discussing ORS 174.040). In the context of statutes that violate Article I, section 8, this court held in Robertson that the remedy will depend on the particular *19 constitutional defect.”

Gilliam Cnty. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 849 P.2d 500 (Or. 1993). · cites it 4× “The severability of unconstitutional portions of a statute is governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall…”

City Univ. v. Off. of Educ. Policy, 885 P.2d 701 (Or. 1994). · cites it 6× “Decisions regarding the severability of statutes are governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in…”

City Univ. v. Off. of Educ. Policy, 870 P.2d 222 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “The severability of unconstitutional portions of a statute is governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: "It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall…”

State v. Harris, 594 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “ORS 174.040 specifically directs us to do so: "It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in force unless: "(1) The statute provides…”

State v. Jackson, 356 P.2d 495 (Or. 1960). · cites it 3× “Our legislature has declared by statute, ORS 174.040, that if any part of an act is held unconstitutional the remaining part shall continue in force unless "so essentially and inseparably connected with and dependent upon the unconstitutional part that it is apparent that the…”

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 952 P.2d 1012 (Or. 1998). · cites it 4× “ORS 174.040 provides: "It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in force unless: "(1) The statute provides otherwise; "(2) The remaining…”

Show all 63 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.040(1) — 3 cases

Gilliam Cnty. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 849 P.2d 500 (Or. 1993). “The severability of unconstitutional portions of a statute is governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall…”

City Univ. v. Off. of Educ. Policy, 870 P.2d 222 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “The severability of unconstitutional portions of a statute is governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: "It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall…”

City Univ. v. Off. of Educ. Policy, 885 P.2d 701 (Or. 1994). “Decisions regarding the severability of statutes are governed by ORS 174.040, which provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.040(2) — 7 cases

Moro v. State of Oregon, 351 P.3d 1 (Or. 2015). “36 Additionally, we hold that the supplemental pay- ments provided for in SB 861 cannot be severed from the unconstitutional application of SB 861 and are, therefore, void in whole, even though the supplemental payment provi- sion itself is not unconstitutional.”

State v. Wolfe, 486 P.3d 748 (Or. 2021).

Brookwell v. Frakes, 642 P.2d 1183 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.040(3) — 6 cases

Deras v. Myers, 535 P.2d 541 (Or. 1975).

State v. Gornick, 102 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “10 ORS 174.040 provides: “It shall be considered that it is the legislative intent, in the enactment of any statute, that if any part of the statute is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in force unless: “(1) The statute provides otherwise; “(2) The…”

State v. Fudge, 552 P.3d 145 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

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.