Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 294.305 (2026)
Sections constituting Local Budget Law
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
294.305 Sections constituting Local Budget Law. ORS 294.305 to 294.565 shall be known as the Local Budget Law.
294.310 [Amended by 1959 c.262 §1; repealed by 1963 c.576 §44]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases, 1957–2020 · leading case: Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 613 P.2d 1 (Or. 1980).
Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 613 P.2d 1 (Or. 1980). “Also, when a local tax levy is made contrary to the state local budget law (ORS 294.305 to 294.520) or any other state law relating to tax levies, the local tax shall be voidable in the Oregon Tax Court by following a specific procedure.”
Coultas v. City of Sutherlin, 871 P.2d 465 (Or. 1994). “485 gives 10 interested taxpayers the right to bring a challenge in the Tax Court to a tax levy “made contrary to the provisions of ORS 294.305 to 294.520, 294.555 and 294.565 or any other law relating to the making of tax levies.”
Gugler v. Baker Cnty. Educ. Serv. Dist., 754 P.2d 900 (Or. 1988). “This case concerns the respective jurisdictions of the Tax and Circuit Courts to adjudicate violations of the Local Budget Law (ORS 294.305 to 294.520, 294.555 and 294.565).”
Gugler v. Baker Cnty. Educ. Serv. Dist., 754 P.2d 891 (Or. 1988). “This case concerns alleged violations of the federal and state constitutions, the Local Budget Law (ORS 294.305 to 294.520, 294.555 and 294.565) and the Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Umatilla Cnty., 10 Or. Tax 309 (Or. T.C. 1983). “(ORS 294.305 to 294.520, 294.555 and 294.565.”
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. Ex Rel. Bashaw v. Hopkins, 631 P.2d 808 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Defendants also suggest several other bases upon which the summary judgment can be supported: (1) the expenditures were in fact all appropriate because all bond sale proceeds were used for construction of the BCI and there was no restriction on the use of the grant moneys…”
Wasco Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local No. 2752, 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “* * * Not more than five working days after the findings and recommendations have been sent, the parties shall notify the board and each other whether or not they accept the recommendations of the factfinder.”
Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine, 618 P.2d 960 (Or. 1980). “ORS 294.305 to 294.520 shall not apply to refunds made out of the unsegregated tax collections account.”
Burks v. Lane Cnty., 695 P.2d 1373 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “” Defendants contend in their third claim that they have authority under the Local Budget Law, ORS 294.305 et seq, to determine the number of personnel and the amount of funding for various programs conducted by the sheriff and that he is bound by those decisions,…”
Napier v. Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist., 4 Or. Tax 221 (Or. T.C. 1970). “485? ORS 294.305 to 294.520 is known as the Local Budget Law.”
Gibbons v. Umatilla Cnty. People's Util. Dist., 9 Or. Tax 176 (Or. T.C. 1982). “) The Local Budget Law, ORS 294.305 to 294.520, must be carefully observed by the governing bodies of those municipalities which have the power to impose property taxation (including people’s utility districts).”
Bashaw v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 7 Or. Tax 196 (Or. T.C. 1977). “The defendant, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, was and is a municipal corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of ORS 294.305 to 294.520 (Oregon’s "Local Budget Law”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 294.305(8) — 2 cases
Petersen v. Intermediate Educ. Dist., 7 Or. Tax 460 (Or. T.C. 1978).
Gugler v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5-J, 12 Or. Tax 162 (Or. T.C. 1992).
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.