192.001 Policy
concerning public records.
(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) The records
of the state and its political subdivisions are so interrelated and
interdependent that the decision as to what records are retained or destroyed
is a matter of statewide public policy.
(b) The interest
and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional
boundaries and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.
(c) As local
programs become increasingly intergovernmental, the state and its political
subdivisions have a responsibility to ensure orderly retention and destruction
of all public records, whether current or noncurrent, and to ensure the
preservation of public records of value for legal, administrative, fiscal,
tribal cultural, historical or research purposes.
(2) The purpose
of ORS 192.005 to 192.170 and 357.805 to 357.895 is to provide direction for
the retention or destruction of public records in Oregon in order to ensure the
retention of records essential to meet the needs of the Legislative Assembly,
the state, its political subdivisions and its citizens, insofar as the records
affect the administration of government, legal rights and responsibilities, and
the accumulation of information of value for research purposes of all kinds,
and in order to ensure the prompt destruction of records without continuing
value. All records not included in types described in this subsection shall be
destroyed in accordance with rules adopted by the Secretary of State. [1973
c.439 §1; 1991 c.671 §3; 2015 c.27 §18; 2023 c.35 §1]
ARCHIVING OF PUBLIC
RECORDS
Notes of Decisions
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 509 P.3d 99 (Or. 2022).
“See ORS 192.001. The public records law is a statute of general appli- cability, like the statute in LaGrande, which required local governments to provide a certain level of retirement bene- fits for police officers and firefighters, ORS 237.”
Marks v. McKenzie High Sch. Fact-Finding Team, 878 P.2d 417 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 3× “001 provides in part: “(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that: U* * * * * “(b) The interest and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional boundaries, and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.”
Springer v. State, 621 P.2d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The city argues that the Bureau of Criminal Identification of the Oregon State Police is required by ORS chapter 181 and by the Public Records Law (ORS 192.001 et seq. ) to maintain the records plaintiff seeks to have expunged or sealed and that the *1215 courts have no power to…”
State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“035(1) states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 192.001 to 192.170, 192.210 to 192.505 and 192.”
Brasel v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 642 P.2d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“770, in pertinent part, provides: “(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 192.001 to 192.500 and 192.610 to 192.”
Brown v. State of Oregon, Dep't of Corr., 173 F.R.D. 262 (D. Or. 1997).
“Request for Merit Rating Reports for Successful Applicants for the Position of Sergeant The defendants state that documents contained in personnel files, including the requested merit rating reports, frequently known as performance evaluations or performance reviews, are…”
Harmon v. Oregon Med. Bd., 510 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“165 is an exemption from disclosure under the public records laws, ORS 192.001 to 192.990, and provides, in part: “(1) When a health professional regulatory board receives a complaint by any person against a licensee, applicant or other person alleged to be prac- ticing in…”
Pamplin Media Grp. v. City of Salem, 429 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“810 relating to confidentiality and accessibility for public inspection of public records and public documents, reports and records compiled under the provisions of ORS 419B.010 to 419B.050 are confidential and may not be disclosed except as provided in this section .”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 192.001(1)(c) (emphases added). Thus, regardless of whether the health records maintained in DHS’s dependency file concerning C’s wardship are ever used again by DHS in the scope of its official work, they are public records subject to retention by the state.”
Marks v. Mckenzie Hs Fact-finding Team, 878 P.2d 417 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 3× “001 provides in part: "(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that: "* * * * * "(b) The interest and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional boundaries, and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 192.001(1)(c) (emphases added). Thus, regardless of whether the health records maintained in DHS’s dependency file concerning C’s wardship are ever used again by DHS in the scope of its official work, they are public records subject to retention by the state.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.001(1)(c) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 192.001(1)(c) (emphases added). Thus, regardless of whether the health records maintained in DHS’s dependency file concerning C’s wardship are ever used again by DHS in the scope of its official work, they are public records subject to retention by the state.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 192.001(1)(c) (emphases added). Thus, regardless of whether the health records maintained in DHS’s dependency file concerning C’s wardship are ever used again by DHS in the scope of its official work, they are public records subject to retention by the state.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.001(2) — 2 cases
Marks v. McKenzie High Sch. Fact-Finding Team, 878 P.2d 417 (Or. 1994).
“001 provides in part: “(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that: U* * * * * “(b) The interest and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional boundaries, and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.”
Marks v. Mckenzie Hs Fact-finding Team, 878 P.2d 417 (Or. 1994).
“001 provides in part: "(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that: "* * * * * "(b) The interest and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional boundaries, and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.”
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.