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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180 (2026)

Conditions for way of necessity

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

      376.180 Conditions for way of necessity. A way of necessity established under ORS 376.150 to 376.200 shall:

      (1) Be located to cause the least possible damage to land across which it is located;

      (2) Be fenced or gated if required by the county governing body;

      (3) Not be connected to a public road in a location or manner that creates a traffic hazard or decreases the safety on the public road;

      (4) Be established only for uses in connection with the property for which the way of necessity is sought;

      (5) Not be subject to any use that is not described in the order establishing the way of necessity;

      (6) Not exceed 30 feet in width unless authorized by the county governing body for engineering purposes;

      (7) Not be connected to a public road where the rights of access to the road have been acquired by the state or a county unless the state or governing body of the county grants permission for the connection;

      (8) Not be established if the property for which the way of necessity is sought has an existing enforceable access to a public road;

      (9) Not be established if the petitioner for the way of necessity could acquire an easement for access to a public road through other legal action;

      (10) Not be established for land that has been subdivided or partitioned in violation of ORS chapter 92;

      (11) Not be established over land owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state unless permission is granted for the way of necessity under ORS 376.185; and

      (12) Not be established for any land if the owner of the land had knowingly eliminated access to all public roads from the land by the sale of other land owned by the landowner. [1979 c.862 §6; 1991 c.936 §5; 1993 c.18 §91]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “When a circuit court has jurisdiction over *83 the establishment of the way of necessity, as in this case, the court must appoint an investigator to submit a written report addressing whether the conditions for the way of necessity have been met, recommending possible…”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
R & C. Ranch, LLC v. Kunde, 33 P.3d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its claim for a prescriptive easement and for damages from interfering with its easement, in denying its punitive damages claim, and in calculating the amount of attorney fees awarded to defendant.”
Chambers v. Disney, 672 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “ORS 376.180(9). We review de novo and reverse.”
Witten v. Murphy, 692 P.2d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “” ORS 376.180 (9). We review de novo, ORS 5.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “To emphasize those requirements, ORS 376.180 provides: "A way of necessity established under ORS 376.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997). · cites it 2× “That is so because the statute, ORS 376.180(8), 4 conditions the need for a way of necessity in part on the absence of *355 an express easement to a public road.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “ORS 376.180 provides that a way of necessity shall: “(8) Not be established if the property for which the way of necessity is sought has an existing enforceable access to a public road; “(9) Not be established if the petitioner for the way of necessity could acquire an easement…”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “ORS 376.180 enumerates the *223 conditions that must exist before a way of necessity can be established.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(10) — 1 case
Aylett v. Mardis, 650 P.2d 165 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(11) — 3 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “When a circuit court has jurisdiction over *83 the establishment of the way of necessity, as in this case, the court must appoint an investigator to submit a written report addressing whether the conditions for the way of necessity have been met, recommending possible…”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(12) — 2 cases
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(2) — 2 cases
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “A petitioner who seeks a way of necessity bears the burden of proving by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the twelve conditions for estab- lishing a way of necessity, enumerated in ORS 376.180, have been met. Bradley v. Dept.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(4) — 2 cases
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “They also argued that, if the Carlisle property is landlocked, petitioner knowingly landlocked it and, as such, was barred by ORS 376.180(12) from obtaining a way of necessity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(5) — 1 case
Aylett v. Mardis, 650 P.2d 165 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(8) — 6 cases
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997). “That is so because the statute, ORS 376.180(8), 4 conditions the need for a way of necessity in part on the absence of *355 an express easement to a public road.”
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “When a circuit court has jurisdiction over *83 the establishment of the way of necessity, as in this case, the court must appoint an investigator to submit a written report addressing whether the conditions for the way of necessity have been met, recommending possible…”
Witten v. Murphy, 692 P.2d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “” ORS 376.180 (9). We review de novo, ORS 5.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 376.180 enumerates the *223 conditions that must exist before a way of necessity can be established.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “ORS 376.180 provides that a way of necessity shall: “(8) Not be established if the property for which the way of necessity is sought has an existing enforceable access to a public road; “(9) Not be established if the petitioner for the way of necessity could acquire an easement…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.180(9) — 5 cases
R & C. Ranch, LLC v. Kunde, 33 P.3d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “Plaintiff also cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its claim for a prescriptive easement and for damages from interfering with its easement, in denying its punitive damages claim, and in calculating the amount of attorney fees awarded to defendant.”
Chambers v. Disney, 672 P.2d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “ORS 376.180(9). We review de novo and reverse.”
Witten v. Murphy, 692 P.2d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “” ORS 376.180 (9). We review de novo, ORS 5.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “To emphasize those requirements, ORS 376.180 provides: "A way of necessity established under ORS 376.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 376.180 enumerates the *223 conditions that must exist before a way of necessity can be established.”
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.