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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 431A.190 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 431A.190 to 431A.216

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      431A.190 Definitions for ORS 431A.190 to 431A.216. As used in ORS 431A.190 to 431A.216:

      (1) “Governing body of a local public health authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 431.003.

      (2) “Inhalant delivery system” has the meaning given that term in ORS 431A.175.

      (3) “Local public health authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 431.003.

      (4) “Premises” means the real property on which a business that makes retail sales of tobacco products or inhalant delivery systems is located.

      (5) “Tobacco products” has the meaning given that term in ORS 431A.175. [2021 c.586 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: 21+ Tobacco & Vapor Retail Assn. v. Multnomah Cnty., 570 P.3d 287 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
21+ Tobacco & Vapor Retail Assn. v. Multnomah Cnty., 570 P.3d 287 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “In this case concerning the authority of defendant Multnomah County to regulate the sale of tobacco products under Senate Bill (SB) 587 (2021), which is codified at ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220, plaintiffs appeal a general judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint entered after…”
21+ Tobacco & Vapor Retail Assn. v. Multnomah Cnty., 570 P.3d 287 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “In this case concerning the authority of defendant Multnomah County to regulate the sale of tobacco products under Senate Bill (SB) 587 (2021), which is codified at ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220, plaintiffs appeal a general judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint entered after…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 13× “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 13× “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 590 P.3d 976 (Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs—retailers of tobacco and nicotine products with locations in Washington County (the retailers)—filed an action for declaratory and injunc- tive relief against the county, contending, as relevant here, that Oregon’s Tobacco Retailer Licensure scheme (referred to in…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 431A.190(2): 2 cases
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 431A.190(5): 3 cases
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 550 P.3d 20 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “The trial court enjoined WCO 878 because it concluded that WCO 878 is preempted by Oregon’s statewide scheme for tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220.1 On appeal, in its sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ruling that…”
Schwartz v. Washington Cnty., 590 P.3d 976 (Or. 2026). “Plaintiffs—retailers of tobacco and nicotine products with locations in Washington County (the retailers)—filed an action for declaratory and injunc- tive relief against the county, contending, as relevant here, that Oregon’s Tobacco Retailer Licensure scheme (referred to in…”
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.