Go Syfert

Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.590 (2026)

Statutory terminology not intended to preserve procedural distinctions between actions and suits

✓ current as of May 2026

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

174.590 Statutory terminology not intended to preserve procedural distinctions between actions and suits. References in the statute laws of this state, including provisions of law deemed to be rules of court as provided in ORS 1.745, in effect on or after January 1, 1980, to actions, actions at law, proceedings at law, suits, suits in equity, proceedings in equity, judgments or decrees are not intended and shall not be construed to retain procedural distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity abolished by ORCP 2. [1979 c.284 §5]

CHAPTER 175

[Reserved for expansion]

_______________

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: Nibler v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 105 P.3d 360 (Or. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nibler v. Oregon Dep't of Transp., 105 P.3d 360 (Or. 2005). · cites it 6× “” Additionally, and more importantly for our purposes, the legislature also enacted ORS 174.590 that same year, providing: “References in the statute laws of this state, including provisions of law deemed to be rules of court as provided in ORS 1.”

Schmidling v. Dove, 670 P.2d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” In addition, ORS 174.590 provides: “References in the statute laws of this state, * * * to actions, actions at law, proceedings at law, suits, suits in equity, proceedings in equity, judgments or decrees are not intended and shall not be construed to retain procedural…”

Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 637 P.2d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 174.590; see also, 1980 Oregon Civil Procedure Rules, Oregon Law Institute, December, 1979, at 225.”

Flaig v. Emert, 320 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See ORS 174.590 (acknowledging the abolition of the distinction between law and equity resulting from the adoption of ORCP 2).”

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.