192.311
Definitions for ORS 192.311 to 192.478. As used in ORS 192.311 to 192.478:
(1) “Business day”
means a day other than Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday and on which at
least one paid employee of the public body that received the public records
request is scheduled to and does report to work. In the case of a community
college district, community college service district, public university, school
district or education service district, “business day” does not include any day
on which the central administration offices of the district or university are
closed.
(2) “Custodian”
means:
(a) The person
described in ORS 7.110 for purposes of court records; or
(b) A public body
mandated, directly or indirectly, to create, maintain, care for or control a
public record. “Custodian” does not include a public body that has custody of a
public record as an agent of another public body that is the custodian unless
the public record is not otherwise available.
(3) “Person”
includes any natural person, corporation, partnership, firm, association or
member or committee of the Legislative Assembly.
(4) “Public body”
includes every state officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board and
commission; every county and city governing body, school district, special
district, municipal corporation, and any board, department, commission,
council, or agency thereof; and any other public agency of this state.
(5)(a) “Public
record” includes any writing that contains information relating to the conduct
of the public’s business, including but not limited to court records,
mortgages, and deed records, prepared, owned, used or retained by a public body
regardless of physical form or characteristics.
(b) “Public
record” does not include any writing that does not relate to the conduct of the
public’s business and that is contained on a privately owned computer.
(6) “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 members, committees, officers or employees insofar as they are
exempt under section 9, Article IV of the Oregon Constitution.
(7) “Writing”
means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing and every means of
recording, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or
combination thereof, and all papers, maps, files, facsimiles or electronic
recordings. [Formerly 192.410]
(Public Records Request
Processing)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case:
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 40× “This case requires us to decide whether defen- dant, an elected member of the West Linn City Council (the council), is herself a “public body” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the notes that she made during her…”
Meyer v. State, 426 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" ORS 192.311(5)(a). However, Goldsmith's report may also be exempt from disclosure.”
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Servs., 520 P.3d 406 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 2× “The issue in this civil action is whether completed request forms prepared by state agencies seeking draft leg- islation from the Office of Legislative Counsel1 are subject to disclosure under Oregon’s Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 to 192.431. The Department of Administrative…”
City of Portland v. Bartlett, 468 P.3d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “355 provides, in relevant part: “The following public records are exempt from disclo- sure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478: “* * * * * “(9)(a) Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confi- dential or privileged under…”
Merrick v. City of Portland, 496 P.3d 1085 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff brought this action to compel the City of Portland (the city) to disclose public records under ORS 192.311 to 192.431, the Oregon Public Records Law.”
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Servs., 498 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “280, a privilege is maintained under this section for a communication ordered to be disclosed under ORS 192.311 to 192.478.” (Emphasis added.”
City of Portland v. Bldg. Codes Div., 496 P.3d 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“r any rule adopted under those statutes, the director may: “(a) Examine building code activities of the municipality; “(b) Take sworn testimony; and “(c) With the authorization of the Office of the Attorney General, subpoena persons and records to obtain testimony on official…”
City of Portland v. Kessler, 556 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “355 states, in relevant part: “The following public records are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478: “* * * * * “(3) Upon compliance with ORS 192.”
State v. Homan, 431 P.3d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" The trial court precluded that line of cross-examination, accepting arguments by the state and Reding's attorney that defendant was required to obtain Reding's records through the public records laws, ORS 192.311 to 192.475, if defendant wanted to cross-examine her about the…”
Peta v. Ohsu, 346 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“The Oregon Public Records Law (OPRL), ORS 192.311 to 192.431, requires public bodies to respond to requests within a specific timeframe and allows the court to impose a $200 fine if it determines that there was “undue delay” in responding to the request.”
Oregon Pub. Broad. v. Dept. of Corr., 350 Or. App. 590 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“This case arises under the Oregon Public Records Law (OPRL), ORS 192.311 to 192.431. At issue is whether public records prepared in the ordinary course of an agen- cy’s business, and not in connection with any sort of crim- inal investigation, qualify as “[i]nvestigatory…”
City of Portland v. Kessler (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “355 states, in relevant part: “The following public records are exempt from disclo- sure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478: “* * * * * “(3) Upon compliance with ORS 192.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.311(2)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.311(4) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“This case requires us to decide whether defen- dant, an elected member of the West Linn City Council (the council), is herself a “public body” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the notes that she made during her…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.311(5) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“This case requires us to decide whether defen- dant, an elected member of the West Linn City Council (the council), is herself a “public body” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the notes that she made during her…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.311(5)(a) — 3 cases
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“This case requires us to decide whether defen- dant, an elected member of the West Linn City Council (the council), is herself a “public body” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the notes that she made during her…”
Meyer v. State, 426 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" ORS 192.311(5)(a). However, Goldsmith's report may also be exempt from disclosure.”
Damián Antoñio Rodríguez Ybabén v. Nancy Jeanne Cozine-Goldstein, State Court Adm'r, Oregon Jud. Dep't; Joann Marie Hubbard, Dir., Human Resource Servs. Div., Oregon Jud. Dep't; Bryant John Baehr, Dir., Enter. Tech. Servs. Div., Oregon Jud. Dep't; & Lizabeth Birney Torgerson, HR Manager, Human Resource Servs. Div., Oregon Jud. Dep't (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.311(7) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“This case requires us to decide whether defen- dant, an elected member of the West Linn City Council (the council), is herself a “public body” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the notes that she made during her…”
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.