Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 192.610 to 192.705

✓ current as of May 2026

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

192.610 Definitions for ORS 192.610 to 192.705. As used in ORS 192.610 to 192.705:

(1) “Convening” means:

(a) Gathering in a physical location;

(b) Using electronic, video or telephonic technology to be able to communicate contemporaneously among participants;

(d) Using an intermediary to communicate among participants.

(2) “Decision” means any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present.

(3) “Deliberation” means discussion or communication that is part of a decision-making process.

(4) “Executive session” means any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body that is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters.

(5) “Governing body” means the members of any public body that consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration.

(6)(a) “Meeting” means the convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter.

(b) “Meeting” does not include any on-site inspection of any project or program or the attendance of members of a governing body at any national, regional or state association to which the public body or the members belong.

(7) “Public body” means the state, any regional council, county, city or district, or any municipal or public corporation, or any board, department, commission, council, bureau, committee or subcommittee or advisory group or any other agency thereof. [1973 c.172 §2; 1979 c.644 §1; 2023 c.417 §1; 2025 c.2 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 412 P.3d 162 (Or. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 412 P.3d 162 (Or. 2018). · cites it 28× “Plaintiff, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet), brought this action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that planned, future collective bargaining sessions between TriMet's bargaining team and the bargaining team for defendant Amalgamated Transit…”

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 22× “Plaintiff appeals a judgment that dismissed his claims against defendants for violations of the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 -192.690. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Lane County and three of the county’s commissioners violated the Public Meetings Law by meeting in private…”

Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 368 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 20× “Plaintiff, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), sought a declaration that the collective bargaining sessions between TriMet’s negotiating team and the bargaining unit for TriMet employees, defendant, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), are not…”

Harris v. Nordquist, 771 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs brought this action under ORS 192.610 to “enforce” the Open Meetings Law, ORS 192.”

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 385 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2016). · cites it 2× “; see ORS 192.610(1) (defining “decision” as *614 “any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present”).”

Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “240(3) provides that: "(1) Nothing contained in ORS 192.610 to 192.690 shall be construed to prevent the governing body of a public body from holding executive session during a regular, special or emergency meeting, after the presiding officer has identified the authorization…”

Krisor v. Henry, 300 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “ORS 192.610 - 192.690. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff filed the action after the 60-day statute of limitations had run.”

Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “Petitioners’ fifth assignment of error challenges OAR 125-055-0010(4) to the extent that it provides that the advisory council established by that rule is not subject to the public meetings law, ORS 192.610 to 192.710. The disputed rule provides: “In promoting the policy of this…”

Dental v. City of Salem, 103 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “680 provides: “(1) A decision made by a governing body of a public body in violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 shall be voidable.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use Comm., 817 P.2d 1299 (Or. 1991). · cites it 3× “The court also rejected PETA’s contention that IACUC violated Oregon’s Open Meeting Law, ORS 192.610 et seq., because PETA “did not bring its challenge as an action seeking remedies under ORS 192.”

Miller v. Water Wonderland Improvement Dist., 918 P.2d 849 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “) Similarly, ORS 192.610 to ORS 192.690 govern public meetings.”

Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “We considered an Attorney General Opinion from 1981 that itself analyzed whether a panel member appointed by the governor to make “an economic assessment of various options [for potential changes to the Washington Public Power Supply System]” was a “public body.”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(1) — 8 cases

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “Plaintiff appeals a judgment that dismissed his claims against defendants for violations of the Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 -192.690. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Lane County and three of the county’s commissioners violated the Public Meetings Law by meeting in private…”

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 385 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2016). “; see ORS 192.610(1) (defining “decision” as *614 “any determination, action, vote or final disposition upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance or measure on which a vote of a governing body is required, at any meeting at which a quorum is present”).”

Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 412 P.3d 162 (Or. 2018). “Plaintiff, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet), brought this action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that planned, future collective bargaining sessions between TriMet's bargaining team and the bargaining team for defendant Amalgamated Transit…”

Mehring v. Arpke, 672 P.2d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation Dist., 609 P.2d 859 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(2) — 3 cases

Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 368 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Plaintiff, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), sought a declaration that the collective bargaining sessions between TriMet’s negotiating team and the bargaining unit for TriMet employees, defendant, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), are not…”

Sw. Oregon Publ'g Co. v. Sw. Oregon Cmty. Coll. Dist., 559 P.2d 1289 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(3) — 5 cases

Indep. Contractors Rsch. Inst. v. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 139 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioners’ fifth assignment of error challenges OAR 125-055-0010(4) to the extent that it provides that the advisory council established by that rule is not subject to the public meetings law, ORS 192.610 to 192.710. The disputed rule provides: “In promoting the policy of this…”

Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 769 P.2d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Sw. Oregon Publ'g Co. v. Sw. Oregon Cmty. Coll. Dist., 559 P.2d 1289 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(4) — 8 cases

Bialostosky v. Cummings, 511 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “We considered an Attorney General Opinion from 1981 that itself analyzed whether a panel member appointed by the governor to make “an economic assessment of various options [for potential changes to the Washington Public Power Supply System]” was a “public body.”

Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “240(3) provides that: "(1) Nothing contained in ORS 192.610 to 192.690 shall be construed to prevent the governing body of a public body from holding executive session during a regular, special or emergency meeting, after the presiding officer has identified the authorization…”

Comeaux v. Water Wonderland Improvement Dist., 12 Or. Tax 132 (Or. T.C. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(5) — 9 cases

Harris v. Nordquist, 771 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Plaintiffs brought this action under ORS 192.610 to “enforce” the Open Meetings Law, ORS 192.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(6) — 1 case

Miller v. Heimuller (D. Or. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.610(7)(a) — 1 case

Miller v. Heimuller (D. Or. 2024).

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.