294.100 Public
official expending money in excess of amount or for different purpose than
provided by law unlawful; civil liability. (1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend
any moneys in excess of the amounts provided by law, or for any other or
different purpose than provided by law.
(2) Any public
official who expends any public moneys in excess of the amounts or for any
other or different purpose than authorized by law shall be civilly liable for
the return of the money by suit of the district attorney of the district in
which the offense is committed, or at the suit of any taxpayer of such
district, if the expenditure constitutes malfeasance in office or willful or
wanton neglect of duty.
(3) On the demand
in writing of 10 taxpayers of any municipal corporation with a population
exceeding 100,000 inhabitants, filed with the tax supervising and conservation
commission in the county in which the municipal corporation is situated, which
demand sets forth that a public official has unlawfully expended public moneys
in excess of the amount or for any other or different purpose than provided by
law and that the expenditure constitutes malfeasance in office or willful or
wanton neglect of duty, the tax supervising and conservation commission shall
make an investigation of the facts as to the expenditure. If the tax
supervising and conservation commission finds that public moneys have been
unlawfully expended and that the expenditure constitutes malfeasance in office
or willful or wanton neglect of duty, the commission shall proceed at law in
the courts against the public official who has unlawfully expended the moneys
for the return of the moneys unlawfully expended to the treasury of the municipal
corporation. A right of action hereby is granted to the tax supervising and
conservation commission for the purposes of this section.
(4) This section
does not apply to the expenditure of revenues that are allowed to be accrued
from a fiscal year to the prior fiscal year under ORS 294.383. [Amended by 2001
c.399 §1; 2002 s.s.4 c.1 §§9,10]
294.105 [Amended by 1963 c.9 §15; 1973
c.315 §1; repealed by 1983 c.537 §7]
294.110 [Repealed by 1953 c.306 §18]
294.115 [1953 c.655 §1; repealed by 1963
c.576 §44]
Notes of Decisions
Burt v. Blumenauer, 699 P.2d 168 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 11× “ORS 294.100 provides in relevant part: “(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.”
Sullivan v. Kizer, 839 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 24× “By knowingly and intentionally paying thousands of dollars of public tax money to these employees, whose hiring was forbidden by law, and whose payment for services is not authorized by law, defendants have misapplied substantial amounts of public tax money, for which defendants…”
Belgarde v. Linn, 134 P.3d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct had violated ORS 294.100, which provides, in part: “(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any moneys in excess of the amounts provided by law, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.”
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. Ex Rel. Bashaw v. Hopkins, 631 P.2d 808 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 7× “This is an action by the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority on behalf of two of its taxpayers against the directors of the Authority pursuant to ORS 294.100, post. The taxpayers seek the return of moneys which they allege were expended by the Authority for purposes other than…”
Cruz v. Multnomah Cnty., 381 P.3d 856 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 2× “820(1) through claims for false arrest, and alluded to potential infringements of civil rights, for which there were, and are, existing rights of action. In addition, because ORS 181 A.820(1) is a restriction on the use of “agency moneys,” there were, and are, enforcement…”
Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 753 P.2d 939 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 2× “In response, plaintiffs cite ORS 294.100, but, as defendants point out, that section refers only to suits by “any taxpayer of [a] district.”
Porter v. Tiffany, 502 P.2d 1385 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff brought this action as a taxpayer under ORS 294.100 ① to require the five commissioners of the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), a municipally owned utility, to personally reimburse EWEB for expenditures of $6,710.”
Harryman v. Roseburg Rural Fire Prot. Dist., 420 P.2d 51 (Or. 1966).
“① Defendant argues that ORS 294.100 (1) and 294.326 (1) prohibit it from expending money unless budgeted in compliance with the local budget law and that the sum which plaintiff seeks to recover was not budgeted.”
Burt v. Blumenauer, 733 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiff, a Multnomah County taxpayer, brought this action under ORS 294.100 against defendants 1 to require them to repay county funds allegedly spent in violation of ORS 260.”
Burt v. Blumenauer, 742 P.2d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “300, and then granted defendants’ ORCP 21 motions to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice requirements of OTCA. We reversed, in part by applying specific language of a 1985 amendment to ORS 30.”
Burt v. Blumenauer, 672 P.2d 51 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “This is an action brought under ORS 294.100, which reads in pertinent part: “(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 294.100(1) — 2 cases
Cruz v. Multnomah Cnty., 381 P.3d 856 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“820(1) through claims for false arrest, and alluded to potential infringements of civil rights, for which there were, and are, existing rights of action. In addition, because ORS 181 A.820(1) is a restriction on the use of “agency moneys,” there were, and are, enforcement…”
Burt v. Blumenauer, 672 P.2d 51 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“This is an action brought under ORS 294.100, which reads in pertinent part: “(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 294.100(2) — 6 cases
Sullivan v. Kizer, 839 P.2d 227 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“By knowingly and intentionally paying thousands of dollars of public tax money to these employees, whose hiring was forbidden by law, and whose payment for services is not authorized by law, defendants have misapplied substantial amounts of public tax money, for which defendants…”
Lipscomb v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 753 P.2d 939 (Or. 1988).
“In response, plaintiffs cite ORS 294.100, but, as defendants point out, that section refers only to suits by “any taxpayer of [a] district.”
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. Ex Rel. Bashaw v. Hopkins, 631 P.2d 808 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“This is an action by the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority on behalf of two of its taxpayers against the directors of the Authority pursuant to ORS 294.100, post. The taxpayers seek the return of moneys which they allege were expended by the Authority for purposes other than…”
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.