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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262 (2026)

Purposes

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

      321.262 Purposes. The purposes of ORS 321.257 to 321.390 are:

      (1) To impose with respect to forestlands in western Oregon a special assessment program whereby the value of forestland is determined as prescribed in ORS 321.201 to 321.222.

      (2) To establish a special assessment program as a means of:

      (a) Recognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon to encourage the growing and harvesting of timber.

      (b) Protecting the public welfare by assuring that the people of this state and future generations shall have the benefits to be derived from the continuous production of forest products from private forestlands.

      (c) Promoting this state’s policy of encouraging forestry and the restocking of forestlands to provide present and future benefits by enhancing the water supply, preventing erosion, providing habitat for wildlife, providing scenic and recreational opportunities and providing for needed products. [1977 c.892 §2; 1993 c.801 §4; 2003 c.621 §3; 2017 c.315 §27]

 

      321.265 [Formerly 528.025; repealed by 1977 c.892 §51]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 111 (Or. T.C. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patton v. Dep't of Revenue, 18 Or. Tax 111 (Or. T.C. 2005). “See ORS 321.262 and ORS 321.353. 19 Further, no statute provides for WOSTOT status to be achieved through payment of a property tax.”
Kliewer v. Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 139 (Or. T.C. 2000). “259 through ORS 321.262. 2 Accordingly, timber is exempted from ad valorem taxation.”
Irwin v. Oregon Dep't of Revenue, 15 Or. Tax 24 (Or. T.C. 1999). · cites it 2× “The purpose of making a distinction between eastern and western forest is to treat them differently.”
Springer v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 826 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “, 8 OTR 186, 189-90 (1979); ORS 321.262(3). *266 Although the special assessment statutes have those purposes in common with Goals 3 and 4 and various other land use requirements, respondents contend that the assessment statutes are designed to realize the objectives in ways…”
Dep't of Revenue v. Rankin, 17 Or. Tax 124 (Or. T.C. 2003). · cites it 5× “259 and ORS 321.262. The legislative findings set forth in ORS 321.”
Angel v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110980C (Or. T.C. Aug. 20, 2012). · cites it 2× “” ORS 321.262(2). (Emphasis added.) Thus, under ORS 321.”
Walker v. Josephine Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 150366C (Or. T.C. Oct. 9, 2015). · cites it 2× “ORS 321.262(2)(a) provides that the purposes of the western Oregon forestland special assessment program are “[t]o establish a special assessment program as a means of * * * [r]ecognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon to…”
Bailey v. Josephine Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 200321N (Or. T.C. May 11, 2021). “ORS 321.262. “ ‘Forestland’ means land in western Oregon that is being held or used for the predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees of a marketable species and has been designated as forestland or land in western Oregon, the highest and best use of which is the…”
Eichorn v. Yamhill Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 210323R (Or. T.C. Sept. 30, 2022). “See ORS 321.262. 1 Once land has been designated as forestland, it will continue to be valued as such, unless the assessor removes the designation.”
Evans v. Josephine Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110892C (Or. T.C. July 25, 2012). “See ORS 321.262 (providing for special assessment of forestland in western Oregon); ORS 321.”
Miller v. Jackson Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 111063C, 2012 WL 5766577 (Or. T.C. Nov. 16, 2012). “See ORS 321.262 (providing for special assessment of forestland in western Oregon); ORS 321.”
Gloekler v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110994N (Or. T.C. Sept. 12, 2012). “” ORS 321.262(2)(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262(2): 1 case
Angel v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110980C (Or. T.C. Aug. 20, 2012). “” ORS 321.262(2). (Emphasis added.) Thus, under ORS 321.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262(2)(a): 3 cases
Dep't of Revenue v. Rankin, 17 Or. Tax 124 (Or. T.C. 2003). “259 and ORS 321.262. The legislative findings set forth in ORS 321.”
Gloekler v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 110994N (Or. T.C. Sept. 12, 2012). “” ORS 321.262(2)(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Walker v. Josephine Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 150366C (Or. T.C. Oct. 9, 2015). “ORS 321.262(2)(a) provides that the purposes of the western Oregon forestland special assessment program are “[t]o establish a special assessment program as a means of * * * [r]ecognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon to…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262(2)(b): 1 case
Walker v. Josephine Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 150366C (Or. T.C. Oct. 9, 2015). “ORS 321.262(2)(a) provides that the purposes of the western Oregon forestland special assessment program are “[t]o establish a special assessment program as a means of * * * [r]ecognizing the long-term nature of the forest crop and fostering the public policy of Oregon to…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262(2)(c): 1 case
Dep't of Revenue v. Rankin, 17 Or. Tax 124 (Or. T.C. 2003). “259 and ORS 321.262. The legislative findings set forth in ORS 321.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 321.262(3): 1 case
Springer v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 826 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “, 8 OTR 186, 189-90 (1979); ORS 321.262(3). *266 Although the special assessment statutes have those purposes in common with Goals 3 and 4 and various other land use requirements, respondents contend that the assessment statutes are designed to realize the objectives in ways…”
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.