Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 330.095 (2026)

Request or petition for change or merger; content

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

330.095 Request or petition for change or merger; content. (1) Subject to ORS 332.118, the request or petition for proposed change or merger in school districts shall:

(a) Be directed to the district boundary board of the county or counties having jurisdiction over the affected school districts;

(b) Contain the names and numbers of districts affected by the change;

(c) Contain a concise statement of the type of change requested and, if only a portion of the school district is involved, contain a legal description thereof; and

(d) If a petition of electors from affected districts is involved, contain the signatures and residence addresses or mailing addresses of the petitioners and the names of the school districts in which they reside.

(2) If a merger is requested or petitioned, the request or petition shall also contain proposals for distribution of debt.

(3) When any proposed boundary change or merger affects school districts under the jurisdiction of different district boundary boards, the proposed change or merger shall first be acted upon by the district boundary board of the county in which lies the most populous district, and must be submitted to the district boundary board of the other affected county or counties.

(4) Any proposed merger may contain a recommendation that the new district retain the same name and number as the most populous school district in the merger or a recommendation for a new name for the district and a request that the number of members of the district school board be increased to seven members. [1963 c.282 §13(2); 1965 c.100 §74; 1967 c.328 §1; 1989 c.819 §4; 1991 c.167 §9; 1993 c.136 §2; 1999 c.21 §63; 2005 c.209 §16; 2011 c.313 §8]

330.100 [1963 c.282 §13(3),(4),(5),(6),(10); repealed by 1965 c.100 §75 (330.101 enacted in lieu of 330.100)]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–1988 · leading case: Cent. Sch. Dist. 13J v. Marion Dist. Boundary Bd., 744 P.2d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cent. Sch. Dist. 13J v. Marion Dist. Boundary Bd., 744 P.2d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “When districts under the jurisdiction of more than one boundary board are involved in a boundary change, approval by the board in which the larger district lies is only a preliminary action.”

Kumley v. Polk Cnty. Dist. Boundary Bd., 706 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although the Yamhill County District Boundary Board approved the transfer, see ORS 330.095, the Board in Polk County did not concur.”

Butte Creek Sch. Dist. No. 67J v. Clackamas Cnty. Dist. Boundary Bd., 744 P.2d 286 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See ORS 330.095(3). 1 On November 7, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review “of the final order of the [Clackamas Board] as approved by the [Marion Board]” in this court, attaching Clackamas Board’s resolution, the record of approval by Marion Board and letters from a…”

Cent. Sch. Dist. 13J v. Marion Cnty. Dist. Boundary Bd., 766 P.2d 413 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “See ORS 330.095. Therefore, the action by the Marion Board was not final.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 330.095(3) — 2 cases

Cent. Sch. Dist. 13J v. Marion Dist. Boundary Bd., 744 P.2d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “When districts under the jurisdiction of more than one boundary board are involved in a boundary change, approval by the board in which the larger district lies is only a preliminary action.”

Butte Creek Sch. Dist. No. 67J v. Clackamas Cnty. Dist. Boundary Bd., 744 P.2d 286 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “See ORS 330.095(3). 1 On November 7, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review “of the final order of the [Clackamas Board] as approved by the [Marion Board]” in this court, attaching Clackamas Board’s resolution, the record of approval by Marion Board and letters from a…”

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.