Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 244.360 (2026)

Additional civil penalty equal to twice amount of financial benefit

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      244.360 Additional civil penalty equal to twice amount of financial benefit. In addition to civil penalties imposed under ORS 244.350, if a public official has financially benefited the public official or any other person by violating any provision of this chapter, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission may impose upon the public official a civil penalty in an amount equal to twice the amount the public official or other person realized as a result of the violation. [1974 c.72 §20; 1987 c.566 §21; 2007 c.865 §19; 2007 c.877 §12a]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1982–1994 · leading case: Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 712 P.2d 87 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “The Commission properly imposed the penalty under ORS 244.360. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.”
Groener v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 651 P.2d 736 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The forfeiture required under ORS 244.360, therefore, cannot be assessed.”
Davidson v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 702 P.2d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 244.360 requires the commission to order a public official who has financially benefited himself to forfeit twice the amount that he realized from the violation.”
Moine v. Oregon Gov't Ethics Comm'n, 877 P.2d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “350, 3 and a forfeiture, under ORS 244.360, of double the financial benefit realized by petitioner as a result of his violations.”
City of Tualatin v. City-Cnty. Ins. Servs. Trust, 878 P.2d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “350 3 and ORS 244.360 *203 impose civil penalties for violations, those penalties are paid to the state, not to the complainant.”
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.