192.431 Court
authority in reviewing action denying right to inspect public records;
docketing; costs and attorney fees.
(1) In any suit filed under ORS 192.401, 192.411, 192.415, 192.422 or 192.427,
the court has jurisdiction to enjoin the public body from withholding records
and to order the production of any records improperly withheld from the person
seeking disclosure. The court shall determine the matter de novo and the burden
is on the public body to sustain its action. The court, on its own motion, may
view the documents in controversy in camera before reaching a decision. Any
noncompliance with the order of the court may be punished as contempt of court.
(2) Except as to
causes the court considers of greater importance, proceedings arising under ORS
192.401, 192.411, 192.415, 192.422 or 192.427 take precedence on the docket
over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the
earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.
(3) If a person
seeking the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record prevails
in the suit, the person shall be awarded costs and disbursements and reasonable
attorney fees at trial and on appeal. If the person prevails in part, the court
may in its discretion award the person costs and disbursements and reasonable
attorney fees at trial and on appeal, or an appropriate portion thereof. If the
state agency failed to comply with the Attorney General’s order in full and did
not issue a notice of intention to institute proceedings pursuant to ORS
192.411 (2) within seven days after issuance of the order, or did not institute
the proceedings within seven days after issuance of the notice, the petitioner
shall be awarded costs of suit at the trial level and reasonable attorney fees
regardless of which party instituted the suit and regardless of which party
prevailed therein. [Formerly 192.490]
192.435 [2015 c.26 §3; 2015 c.805 §2;
renumbered 192.365 in 2017]
192.437 [2015 c.805 §3; renumbered 192.363
in 2017]
192.440 [1973 c.794 §5; 1979 c.548 §4;
1989 c.111 §12; 1989 c.377 §2; 1989 c.546 §2; 1999 c.824 §5; 2001 c.445 §168;
2005 c.272 §1; 2007 c.467 §1; 2017 c.456 §3; renumbered 192.324 in 2017]
192.445 [1993 c.787 §5; 1995 c.742 §12;
2003 c.807 §1; renumbered 192.368 in 2017]
192.447 [2003 c.282 §1; renumbered 192.371
in 2017]
192.448 [2012 c.93 §2; 2012 c.93 §5;
renumbered 192.374 in 2017]
192.450 [1973 c.794 §6; 1975 c.308 §2;
1997 c.791 §8; 1999 c.751 §4; 2017 c.101 §4; subsections (1) to (3) renumbered
192.411 and subsections (4) to (7) renumbered 192.401 in 2017]
192.460 [1973 c.794 §7; 2007 c.513 §4;
renumbered 192.415 in 2017]
PUBLIC RECORDS ADVOCATE
Notes of Decisions
Merrick v. City of Portland, 496 P.3d 1085 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “The operative terms appear in ORS 192.431(3), which provides: “If a person seeking the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record prevails in the suit, the person shall be awarded costs and disbursements and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal.”
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “]” ORS 192.431(1) explains the authority of the court hearing a case; ORS 192.”
Peta v. Ohsu, 346 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 23× “In response, PETA contends that the trial court did not err in awarding it costs, disbursements, and attorney fees because ORS 192.”
Kessler v. City of Portland, 340 Or. App. 185 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Because the City violated the District Attorney’s order in part, pursuant to ORS 192.431(3) Plaintiff is enti- tled to petition the Court for recovery of his attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this matter.”
Peta v. Ohsu, 346 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 22× “In addition, OHSU contends that the legislative history further reflects that the legislature intentionally chose not to authorize attor- ney fee awards to prevailing parties under that statute. In response, PETA contends that the trial court did not err in awarding it costs,…”
Upham v. Forster, 504 P.3d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 30× “If the public body in question does not actually have the records being requested, nothing in ORS 192.431 autho- rizes a trial court to somehow require the public body to obtain new copies of those records from some other public body, one that has not been accused of improperly…”
Pamplin Media Grp. v. City of Salem, 429 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “314(1), which provides that "[e]very person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192.”
Kessler v. City of Portland, 340 Or. App. 185 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Because the City violated the District Attorney’s order in part, pursuant to ORS 192.431(3) Plaintiff is enti- tled to petition the Court for recovery of his attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this matter.”
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Servs., 498 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 168 , 112 P3d 1114 (2005); ORS 192.431(1) (the 266 Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin.”
Sause v. Hummel, 507 P.3d 1292 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“2 Plaintiff also makes a textual argument that he has “prevailed in the suit” for the purposes of ORS 192.431(3). Plaintiff offers no reason to apply a unique definition of “prevail” to that provision and so we decline to address that argu- ment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.431(1) — 6 cases
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“]” ORS 192.431(1) explains the authority of the court hearing a case; ORS 192.”
Pamplin Media Grp. v. City of Salem, 429 P.3d 1019 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“314(1), which provides that "[e]very person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192.”
Upham v. Forster, 504 P.3d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“If the public body in question does not actually have the records being requested, nothing in ORS 192.431 autho- rizes a trial court to somehow require the public body to obtain new copies of those records from some other public body, one that has not been accused of improperly…”
Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Servs., 498 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 168 , 112 P3d 1114 (2005); ORS 192.431(1) (the 266 Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin.”
Peta v. Ohsu, 346 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In response, PETA contends that the trial court did not err in awarding it costs, disbursements, and attorney fees because ORS 192.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.431(2) — 1 case
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“]” ORS 192.431(1) explains the authority of the court hearing a case; ORS 192.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.431(3) — 8 cases
Merrick v. City of Portland, 496 P.3d 1085 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The operative terms appear in ORS 192.431(3), which provides: “If a person seeking the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record prevails in the suit, the person shall be awarded costs and disbursements and reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal.”
Kessler v. City of Portland, 340 Or. App. 185 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Because the City violated the District Attorney’s order in part, pursuant to ORS 192.431(3) Plaintiff is enti- tled to petition the Court for recovery of his attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this matter.”
Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“]” ORS 192.431(1) explains the authority of the court hearing a case; ORS 192.”
Peta v. Ohsu, 346 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In response, PETA contends that the trial court did not err in awarding it costs, disbursements, and attorney fees because ORS 192.”
Kessler v. City of Portland, 340 Or. App. 185 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Because the City violated the District Attorney’s order in part, pursuant to ORS 192.431(3) Plaintiff is enti- tled to petition the Court for recovery of his attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this matter.”
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.