192.005
Definitions for ORS 192.005 to 192.170. As used in ORS 192.005 to 192.170, unless the context
requires otherwise:
(1) “Archivist”
means the State Archivist.
(2) “Photocopy”
includes a photograph, microphotograph and any other reproduction on paper or
film in any scale.
(3) “Photocopying”
means the process of reproducing, in the form of a photocopy, a public record
or writing.
(4) “Political
subdivision” means a city, county, district or any other municipal or public
corporation in this state.
(5) “Public
record”:
(a) Means any
information that:
(A) Is prepared,
owned, used or retained by a state agency or political subdivision;
(B) Relates to an
activity, transaction or function of a state agency or political subdivision;
and
(C) Is necessary
to satisfy the legal, administrative, fiscal, tribal cultural or historical
policies, requirements or needs of the state agency or political subdivision.
(b) Does not
include:
(A) Records of
the Legislative Assembly, its committees, officers and employees.
(B) Library and
museum materials made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or
exhibition purposes.
(C) Records or
information concerning the location of archaeological sites or objects as those
terms are defined in ORS 358.905.
(D) Extra copies
of a document, preserved only for convenience of reference.
(E) A stock of
publications.
(F) Messages on
voice mail.
(G) Records of
the Judicial Department or its officers and employees.
(H) Spoken
communication that is not recorded.
(6) “State agency”:
(a) Means any
state officer, department, board or commission created by the Constitution or
statutes of this state.
(b) Does not
include:
(A) The
Legislative Assembly or its committees, officers and employees; or
(B) The Judicial
Department or its officers and employees. [1961 c.160 §2; 1965 c.302 §1; 1983
c.620 §11; 1989 c.16 §1; 1999 c.55 §1; 1999 c.140 §1; 2011 c.645 §1; 2023 c.35 §2]
192.010 [Repealed by 1973 c.794 §34]
Notes of Decisions
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 509 P.3d 99 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 2× “2 2 We say no “general” exemption for public records of attorney-client commu- nications, because some of those records may be subject to the express “except[ion]” to disclosure in ORS 192.398. Other attorney-client communications, although in the possession of a public entity,…”
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “5 In defendant’s view of the legislative history, the choice to list only “state officers” and not “all officers” pro- vides “compelling” evidence that the legislature “unequiv- ocally narrowed Oregon’s public records disclosure laws.”
Oregonians for Sound Econ. Policy, Inc. v. State Accident Ins. Fund Corp., 69 P.3d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “780(2), which concerns medical investigator reports, to provide that, “[notwithstanding the provisions of [ORS 192.005 to 192.170] sections 2 to 11 of this Act relating to confidentiality and accessibility for public inspection of public records [and public documents], records…”
State Ex Rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 767 P.2d 893 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 2× “ORS 192.005(7) ("`state agency' means any state officer, department, board, commission or court created by the Constitution or statutes of this state * * * [but] does not include the Legislative Assembly or its committees, officers and employes"); ORS 192.”
Enertrol Power Monitoring Corp. v. State, 836 P.2d 123 (Or. 1992).
“” For purposes of custody and maintenance of public records, ORS 192.005(7) provides: “ ‘State agency’ means any state officer, department, board, commission or court created by the Constitution or statutes of this state.”
Stivahtis v. Juras, 511 P.2d 421 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Stivahtis’s physical and mental condition or family history. Defendants refused to release the information, and plaintiffs brought this suit to establish their claim of right to access to public records under ORS 192.”
Papadopoulos v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 494 P.2d 260 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
“” ORS 192.005(6). ③ See also, State v. Keller, 143 Or 589, 601 , 21 P2d 807 (1933) (involving a different statute in which the court said, “The public must always have access to all public records required to be kept or made by a public official unless the statute specifically…”
Ayers v. Lee Enter. Inc., 561 P.2d 998 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Later that same year the Oregon legislature amended the statute by adding ORS 192.005(5), defining "public records” for the propose of that statute.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“C’s health records, as collected and maintained by DHS, qualify as public records under ORS 192.005(5)(a) because they include “information” that: “(A) Is prepared, owned, used or retained by a state agency or political subdivision; “(B) Relates to an activity, transaction or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(4) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“5 In defendant’s view of the legislative history, the choice to list only “state officers” and not “all officers” pro- vides “compelling” evidence that the legislature “unequiv- ocally narrowed Oregon’s public records disclosure laws.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(5) — 6 cases
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 509 P.3d 99 (Or. 2022).
“2 2 We say no “general” exemption for public records of attorney-client commu- nications, because some of those records may be subject to the express “except[ion]” to disclosure in ORS 192.398. Other attorney-client communications, although in the possession of a public entity,…”
Ayers v. Lee Enter. Inc., 561 P.2d 998 (Or. 1977).
“Later that same year the Oregon legislature amended the statute by adding ORS 192.005(5), defining "public records” for the propose of that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(5)(a) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“C’s health records, as collected and maintained by DHS, qualify as public records under ORS 192.005(5)(a) because they include “information” that: “(A) Is prepared, owned, used or retained by a state agency or political subdivision; “(B) Relates to an activity, transaction or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(6) — 1 case
Papadopoulos v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 494 P.2d 260 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
“” ORS 192.005(6). ③ See also, State v. Keller, 143 Or 589, 601 , 21 P2d 807 (1933) (involving a different statute in which the court said, “The public must always have access to all public records required to be kept or made by a public official unless the statute specifically…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(6)(a) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“5 In defendant’s view of the legislative history, the choice to list only “state officers” and not “all officers” pro- vides “compelling” evidence that the legislature “unequiv- ocally narrowed Oregon’s public records disclosure laws.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.005(7) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 767 P.2d 893 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 192.005(7) ("`state agency' means any state officer, department, board, commission or court created by the Constitution or statutes of this state * * * [but] does not include the Legislative Assembly or its committees, officers and employes"); ORS 192.”
Enertrol Power Monitoring Corp. v. State, 836 P.2d 123 (Or. 1992).
“” For purposes of custody and maintenance of public records, ORS 192.005(7) provides: “ ‘State agency’ means any state officer, department, board, commission or court created by the Constitution or statutes of this state.”
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.