Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120

Computation of time; leap year

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

      174.120 Computation of time; leap year. (1) The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil and criminal procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day, unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.

      (2) For the purposes of determining whether a person has complied with a statutory time limitation governing an act to be performed in a circuit court, the Oregon Tax Court, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the time prescribed by law for the performance of the act does not include the day on which the specified period begins to run. The designated period does include the last day unless the last day is:

      (a) A legal holiday or Saturday;

      (b) A day on which the court is closed for the purpose of filing pleadings and other documents;

      (c) A day on which the court is closed by order of the Chief Justice, to the extent provided by the order; or

      (d) A day on which the court is closed before the end of the normal hours during which pleadings and other documents may be filed.

      (3) If the last day of a designated period is excluded under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the act must be performed on the next day that the court is open for the purpose of filing pleadings and other documents.

      (4) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section apply to time limitations established by statutes of limitation and other procedural statutes governing civil and criminal proceedings.

      (5) If a statute of limitation or other procedural statute governing civil or criminal proceedings provides that an act be done within one or more years, the time for performing the act is computed in calendar years. If the specified period begins to run on a date other than February 29, the act must be done on or before the same date in the calendar year in which the specified period ends as the date in the calendar year in which the specified period began to run. If the specified period of time begins to run on February 29, the act must be done on or before February 28 of the calendar year in which the specified period ends. [Amended by 1979 c.284 §118; 1985 c.282 §2; 2002 s.s.1 c.10 §6; 2003 c.228 §1; 2013 c.1 §14]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp. (1998) or · cites it 29× “*441 Plaintiff contends that, by operation of the computation method provided in ORS 174.120, the limitation period extended to the Monday on which she filed her claim.”
State v. M. D. D. (2022) orctapp · cites it 14× “232(2) and calculated under ORS 174.120. Appellant contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Monday, October 11, while the state contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Tuesday, October 12.”
State v. Vanornum (2013) or · cites it 2× “, 327 Or 433, 442 , 963 P2d 678 (1998) (“ORS 174.120 applies to civil procedure statutes other than the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.”
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Appling (1960) or · cites it 31× “Both parties invoke ORS 174.120 as the controlling statute for justifying their respective computations.”
State v. Hansen (1987) or · cites it 2× “Hill, 219 Or 440 , 348 P2d 58 (1959); ORS 174.120; ORCP 10. With respect to age, however, the common-law calculation included the day of birth.”
Webster v. Harmon (2006) orctapp · cites it 11× “However, in 2002, the legislature amended ORCP 10 A to provide that “[t]his section does not apply to any time limitation governed by ORS 174.120.” Or Laws 2002, ch 10, § 9 (1st Spec Sess).”
Hartung v. Bradbury (2001) or · cites it 2× “Under Article IV, section 6(3)(b), this court has original jurisdiction of petitions “filed with the Supreme Court on or before September 15 * * Ater primarily relied on ORS 174.120 in concluding that, the specific date in the constitution notwithstanding, a filing on a later…”
Ater v. Keisling (1991) or · cites it 4× “2d 1042 (1961) (ORS 174.120 applicable to proceedings arising under Article IV, section 6, of the Oregon Constitution); ORS 174.”
Propp v. Long (1992) or · cites it 3× “” ORS 174.120 similarly provides that “the time within which an act is to be done * * * is computed by excluding the first day and including the last unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which case the last day is also excluded.”
State v. Chatfield (1997) orctapp · cites it 12× “It also relies on ORS 174.120, which states a general rule of time computation that excludes the first day in the time period.”
State Ex Rel. Emerald People's Utility District v. Joseph (1982) or · cites it 2× “[1] As my secretary typed this opinion I was rushing to complete a rewrite of one opinion and to complete a third opinion.”
Beardsley v. Hill (1959) or · cites it 3× “The statute which must govern this question is ORS 174.120: “The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in the civil procedure statutes, is computed by excluding the first day and including the last unless the last day falls upon any legal holiday or on Saturday, in…”
Show all 62 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(1) — 6 cases
State v. M. D. D. (2022) orctapp “232(2) and calculated under ORS 174.120. Appellant contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Monday, October 11, while the state contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Tuesday, October 12.”
River Vale Limited Partnership v. Dept. of Rev. (2021) ortc
State v. McGee (2013) orctapp
Harrington v. Water Resources Department (2007) orctapp
Orth v. Dept. of Rev. (2018) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(2) — 5 cases
State v. M. D. D. (2022) orctapp “232(2) and calculated under ORS 174.120. Appellant contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Monday, October 11, while the state contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Tuesday, October 12.”
Orth v. Dept. of Rev. (2018) ortc
Gregg v. Dept. of Rev. (2018) ortc
State v. Meiser (2018) orctapp
Cramers Grinding & Tooling v. Dept. of Rev. (2023) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Mullins (2012) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. M. D. D. (2022) orctapp “232(2) and calculated under ORS 174.120. Appellant contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Monday, October 11, while the state contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Tuesday, October 12.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(3) — 5 cases
McCall v. Kulongoski (2005) or
J. A. H. v. Heikkila (2014) or
State v. Meiser (2018) orctapp
J. A. H. v. Heikkila (2014) or
Reed v. Dept. of Rev. (2015) ortc
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(4) — 1 case
State v. M. D. D. (2022) orctapp “232(2) and calculated under ORS 174.120. Appellant contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Monday, October 11, while the state contends that the first “judicial day” in the calculation was Tuesday, October 12.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.120(5) — 1 case
McCune v. Dept. of Rev. (2017) ortc
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.