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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.805 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      342.805 Short title. ORS 342.805 to 342.937 shall be known as the Accountability for Schools for the 21st Century Law. [1965 c.608 §1; 1971 c.570 §2; 1977 c.881 §1; 1997 c.864 §26]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases, 1967–2008 · leading case: Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979). · cites it 4× “Davis taught classes in a "special education" program for children with mental, physical, emotional or learning problems.”
Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Mayer, 591 P.2d 755 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 8× “895(1) provides: "(1) Authority to dismiss a permanent teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal procedures of ORS 342.805 to 342.955 and only after recommendation of the dismissal is given to the district school board by the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “895(1) provides: "Authority to dismiss a permanent teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal procedures of ORS 342.805 to 342.955 and only after recommendation of the dismissal is given to the district school board by the…”
Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986). “These statutes are now found in ORS 342.805 to 342.930. 3 None of the parties nor the Court of Appeals addressed the question what substantive or procedural effects various provisions of the Teacher Tenure Law might have on a teacher’s suspension and a resulting revocation of…”
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 812 P.2d 1384 (Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “1 Authority to dismiss a permanent school teacher is vested in the district school board after recommendation of the dismissal is given to the board by the superintendent, subject to the provisions of the Fair Dismissal Law, ORS 342.”
George v. Sch. Dist. No. 8r, Umatilla Cty., 490 P.2d 1009 (Or. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “508 (1), which covers teacher contracts in districts such as the defendant with an average daily membership over 800 pupils, but not subject to the Pair Dismissal Law, ORS 342.805 to 342.955, as amended, Oregon Laws 1971, ch 570, formerly known as the Teacher Tenure Law.”
Maddox v. Clackamas Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 643 P.2d 1253 (Or. 1982). “4 This is to be distinguished from the extensive substantive and procedural protection from termination required for permanent teachers by the Fair Dismissal Law, ORS 342.805 to 342.955. Plaintiff is not a “permanent teacher” as that term is used in the statute.”
Post v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 987 P.2d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “895 (1995) provided: “(1) Authority to dismiss a permanent teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal procedures of ORS 342.805 to 342.934 and only after recommendation of the dismissal is given to the school district board by…”
Edwards v. Riverdale Sch. Dist., 188 P.3d 317 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Depending on whether an individual is a “teacher” (and, in turn, whether a teacher is classified as “probationary” or “contract”) or an “administrator,” different processes apply.”
Sch. Dist. No. 48 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 512 P.2d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 5× “[1] The present Fair Dismissal Law, ORS 342.805 to 342.955, was largely rewritten and the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board was first provided in Oregon Laws 1971, ch.”
Beaverton Educ. Ass'n v. Washington Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 48, 708 P.2d 633 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “It contends that that evidence should have been admitted to show that the issues raised in Pecka’s grievance were considered in the FDAB proceeding on the dismissal.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 641 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “That contention assumes that it is up to the FDAB to determine what is immoral or what constitutes gross unfitness. As we read the statutory scheme, it is not.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
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.