Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.640 (2026)

Public notice required; special notice for executive sessions or special or emergency meetings

✓ current as of May 2026

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

192.640 Public notice required; special notice for executive sessions or special or emergency meetings. (1) The governing body of a public body shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including news media which have requested notice, of the time and place for holding regular meetings. The notice shall also include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting, but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects.

(2) If an executive session only will be held, the notice shall be given to the members of the governing body, to the general public and to news media which have requested notice, stating the specific provision of law authorizing the executive session.

(3) No special meeting shall be held without at least 24 hours’ notice to the members of the governing body, the news media which have requested notice and the general public. In case of an actual emergency, a meeting may be held upon such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances, but the minutes for such a meeting shall describe the emergency justifying less than 24 hours’ notice. [1973 c.172 §4; 1979 c.644 §3; 1981 c.182 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “In the first claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that the May 3 emergency meeting violated procedural requirements in ORS 192.640(3) because defendants did not give at least 24-hours notice of the meeting, did not declare a justification for giving less than 24-hours notice, and…”

Smith v. Sch. Dist. No. 45, 666 P.2d 1345 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 9× “ORS 192.640. The trial court made findings and conclusions and entered judgment for defendant.”

Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 368 P.3d 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Labor negotiations conducted in executive session are not subject to the notification requirements of ORS 192.640.” We acknowledge that the text of the provision— when divorced from its context — can be read as ATU reads it: that is, to impose an obligation on public bodies to…”

Krisor v. Henry, 300 P.3d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Plaintiff’s operative complaint alleged that, in hiring Haffner, the board violated ORS 192.640, which requires public notice of any governing body’s meetings, and that he was therefore entitled to challenge the decision in court and, if successful, void it, under ORS 192.”

Dodds v. City of West Linn, 193 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiff also contends that he was entitled to notice under the state public meetings law, ORS 192.640(1), which requires governing bodies of public bodies give specified notice “to interested persons including news media which have requested notice.”

Krisor v. Lake Cnty. Fair Bd., 302 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Plaintiff essentially conceded this conclusion when, in response to a show cause order from the Appellate Commissioner, he stated that “the complaint alleges the defendants violated ORS 192.640 by holding a public meeting that was not properly noticed.”

Oregon Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist. 24J, 767 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Earlier on the same day that the association filed the petition, the district board voted at an emergency meeting, see ORS 192.640(3), to approve a new collective bargaining agreement with OSEA, the incumbent certified representative of the employes.”

Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 369 P.3d 1239 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “630(3) to (5) and ORS 192.640 to 192.672 impose additional requirements as to how “meetings” must be conducted.”

Adamson v. Bonesteele, 648 P.2d 1352 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “It requires that notice be given of the time and place for holding meetings, ORS 192.640, and that written minutes be taken and made available to the public.”

John Lee Malaer v. Curry Cnty., et al. (D. Or. 2026). “2, 3; ORS 192.640. This was sufficient to provide notice for due process purposes and Plaintiff was not entitled to individualized notice of the proceeding.”

Turner v. Washington Cnty., 689 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Petitioners argue that those defects violated provisions of the Community Development Ordinance and ORS 192.640(1). The Community Development Ordinance requires that notice include a “description of the subject property, reasonably calculated to give notice as to its actual…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.640(1) — 2 cases

Turner v. Washington Cnty., 689 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Petitioners argue that those defects violated provisions of the Community Development Ordinance and ORS 192.640(1). The Community Development Ordinance requires that notice include a “description of the subject property, reasonably calculated to give notice as to its actual…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.640(3) — 2 cases

Handy v. Lane Cnty., 362 P.3d 867 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “In the first claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that the May 3 emergency meeting violated procedural requirements in ORS 192.640(3) because defendants did not give at least 24-hours notice of the meeting, did not declare a justification for giving less than 24-hours notice, and…”

Oregon Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist. 24J, 767 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “Earlier on the same day that the association filed the petition, the district board voted at an emergency meeting, see ORS 192.640(3), to approve a new collective bargaining agreement with OSEA, the incumbent certified representative of the employes.”

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.