206.210
Authority of sheriff over organization of office. Notwithstanding the provisions of
ORS 241.016 to 241.990 or any other county civil service law or regulation, the
sheriff may organize the work of the office of the sheriff so that:
(1) The various
duties required of the office may be assigned to appropriate departments and
divisions to be performed by persons experienced and qualified for such
respective kinds of work.
(2) The duties of
the various assistants, officers and deputies of the sheriff are coordinated so
that, when not engaged in a particular duty specified or directed to be done
and not then requiring attention, such persons shall perform the other duties required
of the office and then required to be done.
(3) The
cooperation among assistants, officers, deputies and employees in the
departments and divisions may be secured for the purposes of avoiding duplication
of time and effort. [1963 c.331 §2]
206.220 [1963 c.331 §3; repealed by 1981
c.48 §8]
206.230 [1963 c.331 §§4,6; repealed by
1981 c.48 §8]
206.240 [1963 c.331 §5; repealed by 1981
c.48 §8]
206.250 [1963 c.331 §7; repealed by 1981
c.48 §8]
206.300 [1971 c.453 §1; repealed by 1975
c.780 §16]
MISCELLANEOUS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1985–2019 · leading case:
State v. Edmonds, 435 P.3d 752 (Or. 2019).
State v. Edmonds, 435 P.3d 752 (Or. 2019).
“" ORS 206.210. For that reason, when an employee of the sheriff's department-whether a sheriff's deputy or an employee of the records office-performs duties assigned by the sheriff, or assigned by the rules of the department, that employee acts "pursuant to duty imposed by law,"…”
Burks v. Lane Cnty., 695 P.2d 1373 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“2 Plaintiffs also rely in their brief — although not in their pleadings — on ORS 206.210. It provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 241.”
Daniel v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 157 P.3d 275 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “In both actions, plaintiff argued that ORS 206.210 (set out below) gave him the authority to organize the work of the office and that such authority included the authority to set the rank and compensation of the deputies, limited only by the requirement that he stay within his…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 206.210(1) — 1 case
Daniel v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 157 P.3d 275 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“In both actions, plaintiff argued that ORS 206.210 (set out below) gave him the authority to organize the work of the office and that such authority included the authority to set the rank and compensation of the deputies, limited only by the requirement that he stay within his…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 206.210(2) — 1 case
Daniel v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 157 P.3d 275 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“In both actions, plaintiff argued that ORS 206.210 (set out below) gave him the authority to organize the work of the office and that such authority included the authority to set the rank and compensation of the deputies, limited only by the requirement that he stay within his…”
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.