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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.190 (2026)

Responsibility for maintenance of way of necessity; alteration limited

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

      376.190 Responsibility for maintenance of way of necessity; alteration limited. (1) A way of necessity that is established under ORS 376.150 to 376.200 shall be maintained and kept passable by the person owning the land for which the way of necessity is established. This subsection does not require the person to provide for maintenance of the way of necessity for uses or persons not specifically provided in the order establishing the way of necessity.

      (2) A way of necessity established under ORS 376.150 to 376.200 shall not be altered or vacated except by the governing body of the county in which it is located and in a manner provided by law for the alteration or vacation of a public road.

      (3) No county shall be required to work, improve, maintain or repair a way of necessity. [1979 c.862 §8; 1991 c.936 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Although plaintiff would have to maintain the road under ORS 376.190(1) and Walker (the president and majority shareholder of Thomas Creek Lumber) testi- fied that he would seek to ensure long-term maintenance of the road by subsequent owners of his landlocked property, the…”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Finally, ORS 376.190(1) provides that, once established, a way of necessity “shall be maintained and kept passable” by the person owning the benefited property, at least to the extent necessary for the uses to which the benefited property is put.”
Chapman v. Perron, 685 P.2d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “To reinforce this position, they point to ORS 376.190(1), which provides: “A way of necessity that is established under ORS 376.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Finally, ORS 376.190(1) provides that, once established, a way of necessity "shall be maintained and kept passable" by the person owning the benefited property, at least to the extent necessary for the uses to which the benefited property is put.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Another witness, Cone, testified that he had concerns about the proposed loca- tion for the way of necessity, based on the steepness of the side slopes and the potential for slope failure. There was evi- dence that the slopes off the side of the road are mostly over 60-percent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.190(1) — 5 cases
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Finally, ORS 376.190(1) provides that, once established, a way of necessity “shall be maintained and kept passable” by the person owning the benefited property, at least to the extent necessary for the uses to which the benefited property is put.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Although plaintiff would have to maintain the road under ORS 376.190(1) and Walker (the president and majority shareholder of Thomas Creek Lumber) testi- fied that he would seek to ensure long-term maintenance of the road by subsequent owners of his landlocked property, the…”
Chapman v. Perron, 685 P.2d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “To reinforce this position, they point to ORS 376.190(1), which provides: “A way of necessity that is established under ORS 376.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Finally, ORS 376.190(1) provides that, once established, a way of necessity "shall be maintained and kept passable" by the person owning the benefited property, at least to the extent necessary for the uses to which the benefited property is put.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Another witness, Cone, testified that he had concerns about the proposed loca- tion for the way of necessity, based on the steepness of the side slopes and the potential for slope failure. There was evi- dence that the slopes off the side of the road are mostly over 60-percent…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.190(2) — 4 cases
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Although plaintiff would have to maintain the road under ORS 376.190(1) and Walker (the president and majority shareholder of Thomas Creek Lumber) testi- fied that he would seek to ensure long-term maintenance of the road by subsequent owners of his landlocked property, the…”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
Chapman v. Perron, 685 P.2d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “To reinforce this position, they point to ORS 376.190(1), which provides: “A way of necessity that is established under ORS 376.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Another witness, Cone, testified that he had concerns about the proposed loca- tion for the way of necessity, based on the steepness of the side slopes and the potential for slope failure. There was evi- dence that the slopes off the side of the road are mostly over 60-percent…”
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.