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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.055 (2026)

Evidentiary purposes of improvement plan

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

      374.055 Evidentiary purposes of improvement plan. In any proceeding in eminent domain evidence of the entire plan of improvement is admissible for the purpose of determining:

      (1) Value of property taken.

      (2) All damages by reason of deprivation of right of access to any highway to be constructed, established or maintained as a throughway.

      (3) The damages which, if the property sought to be condemned constitutes a part of a larger parcel, will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned and by reason of the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1957–2015 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc., 366 P.3d 316 (Or. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc., 366 P.3d 316 (Or. 2015). “035 (providing that state may acquire access rights by exercise of power of eminent domain for purposes of constructing throughway); ORS 374.055 (requiring that landowner be permitted to adduce evidence of “ [a]ll damages by reason of deprivation of right of access”)).”
State v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc., 336 P.3d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “When the state exercises the power of eminent domain to improve a state throughway, ORS 374.055 provides, in part, that “the entire plan of improvement is admissible for the purpose of determining: “(1) Value of property taken.”
State High. Comm'n v. Bailey, 319 P.2d 906 (Or. 1957). “Under ORS 374.055(3) quoted supra, evidence was admissible to determine the damages which will accrue to the part not sought to be condemned by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned and by reason of thé construction of the improvement in the manner…”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Boothman, 540 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “085 and analysis of the evidence to determine whether there was a jury question.”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Mayem, 526 P.2d 1390 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “All that appears in plaintiff’s amended complaint as the plan of improvement is: title in fee simple to the property in issue was to be acquired “for right of way purposes”; the highway involved “is to be widened, improved, constructed and maintained as a throughway.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 374.055(3) — 2 cases
State High. Comm'n v. Bailey, 319 P.2d 906 (Or. 1957). “Under ORS 374.055(3) quoted supra, evidence was admissible to determine the damages which will accrue to the part not sought to be condemned by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned and by reason of thé construction of the improvement in the manner…”
State ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Boothman, 540 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “085 and analysis of the evidence to determine whether there was a jury question.”
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.