366.290 Adding
to or removing roads from state highway system; responsibility for construction
and maintenance.
(1) The Department of Transportation may select, locate, establish, designate,
improve and maintain out of the highway fund a system of state highways, and
for that purpose may, by mutual agreement with several counties, select county
roads or public roads. By an appropriate order entered in its records the
department may designate and adopt such roads as state highways. Thereafter the
construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of such roads shall be under
the jurisdiction of the department.
(2) In the
selection of highways or roads to be included in the state highway system the
department shall give consideration to and shall select such county roads or
public roads as will contribute to and best promote the completion of an
adequate system of state highways.
(3)(a) With the
written agreement of the county in which a particular highway or part thereof
is located, the department may, when in its opinion the interests of highway
users will be best served, eliminate from the state highway system any road,
highway, road segment or highway segment. The road, highway or segment becomes
a county road or highway, and the construction, repair, maintenance or
improvement, and jurisdiction over the road or highway will be exclusively
under the county in which the road or highway is located.
(b) In addition
to the funds provided under ORS 366.762 to the county, the department may
annually provide funds out of the State Highway Fund to address the additional
costs to the county for the construction, repair, maintenance or improvement of
the road or highway over which the county accepts jurisdiction.
(c) The agreement
between the department and the county accepting jurisdiction must contain
provisions to ensure that freight movement on the highway will not be
restricted beyond the limits set in the agreement, unless the Oregon
Transportation Commission, in consultation with the freight industry and the
county, concludes that the restriction is necessary for the safety of the
highway users. Nothing in this section prevents a county from taking emergency
action to protect safety or place weight restrictions on a structure that is
failing or otherwise damaged.
(4) The
construction, maintenance and repair of state highways shall be carried on at
the sole expense of the state or at the expense of the state and the county by
mutual agreement between the department and the county in which any particular state
highway is located. [Amended by 1953 c.252 §2; 1979 c.223 §1; 2011 c.330 §24]
Notes of Decisions
Turner v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 375 P.3d 508 (Or. 2016).
“205(2) and ORS 366.290(1)); Hughes v. Wilson, 345 Or 491, 497-98 , 199 P3d 305 (2008) (holding that counties have a duty to make roads that they own and control reasonably safe for the general public).”
Little v. Wimmer, 739 P.2d 564 (Or. 1987).
“) ORS 366.290(1) provides in relevant part: “* * * [T]he construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of such roads shall be under the jurisdiction of the [Department [of Transportation].”
Liberty v. State, 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“” Similarly, ORS 366.290 provides, in part, that “the construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of such roads shall be under the jurisdiction of the [Department [of Transportation].”
Liberty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“" Similarly, ORS 366.290 provides, in part, that "the construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of such roads shall be under the jurisdiction of the [D]epartment [of Transportation].”
Klamath Cnty. v. Dep't of Transp., 116 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “The county relies on ORS 366.290(3), which provides: “With the written consent of the county in which a particular highway or part thereof is located, the department may, when in its opinion the interests of the state will be best served, eliminate from the state highway system…”
Turner v. Dept. of Transp. (Or. 2016).
“205(2) and ORS 366.290(1)); Hughes v. Wilson, 345 Or 491, 497-98 , 199 P3d 305 (2008) (holding that counties have a duty to make roads that they own and control reasonably safe for the general public).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 366.290(1) — 3 cases
Turner v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 375 P.3d 508 (Or. 2016).
“205(2) and ORS 366.290(1)); Hughes v. Wilson, 345 Or 491, 497-98 , 199 P3d 305 (2008) (holding that counties have a duty to make roads that they own and control reasonably safe for the general public).”
Little v. Wimmer, 739 P.2d 564 (Or. 1987).
“) ORS 366.290(1) provides in relevant part: “* * * [T]he construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of such roads shall be under the jurisdiction of the [Department [of Transportation].”
Turner v. Dept. of Transp. (Or. 2016).
“205(2) and ORS 366.290(1)); Hughes v. Wilson, 345 Or 491, 497-98 , 199 P3d 305 (2008) (holding that counties have a duty to make roads that they own and control reasonably safe for the general public).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 366.290(3) — 1 case
Klamath Cnty. v. Dep't of Transp., 116 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The county relies on ORS 366.290(3), which provides: “With the written consent of the county in which a particular highway or part thereof is located, the department may, when in its opinion the interests of the state will be best served, eliminate from the state highway system…”
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.