471.130
Requiring statement of age or identification from certain purchasers. (1) Before selling or serving an
alcoholic beverage to any person about whom there is any reasonable doubt of
the person’s having reached 21 years of age, a licensee or permittee shall
require the person to produce one of the following pieces of identification:
(a) The person’s
passport issued by the United States or a foreign government.
(b) The person’s
motor vehicle operator’s license issued by this state or another state of the
United States or a province or territory of Canada.
(c) An
identification card issued under ORS 807.400.
(d) A United
States military identification card.
(e) An
identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(f) Any other
identification card issued by a state or territory of the United States or
province or territory of Canada that bears a picture of the person, the name of
the person, the person’s date of birth and a physical description of the
person.
(g) Proof of the
person’s participation in the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
Inspection program operated by United States Customs and Border Protection, the
NEXUS program jointly operated by that agency and the Canada Border Services
Agency, or a successor to either of those programs that is recognized by the
Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission.
(h) Any other
form of identification as defined by the commission by rule.
(2) If a person
does not have identification as described in subsection (1) of this section,
the permittee or licensee shall require the person to make a written statement
of age and furnish evidence of the person’s true age and identity. The written
statement of age shall be on a form furnished or approved by the commission,
including but not limited to the following information:
______________________________________________________________________________
Date
______
I am 21 years of age or
over.
______
Signature
Description of evidence
in support of age and identity:
___ Identification No.
(if any) ___
___ Identification No.
(if any) ___
(Fill in
information pertaining to any two or more pieces of evidence submitted by the
person.)
I hereby certify
that I have accurately recorded identification of the evidence submitted to
complete this form.
___________________
Signature
of permittee or licensee
A person under 21
years of age who knowingly misrepresents the person’s true age with the intent
of obtaining alcohol in violation of ORS chapter 471 may be subject to criminal
penalties under ORS 165.805.
______________________________________________________________________________
[Amended by 1955 c.525 §1; 1961 c.687 §4; 1967 c.171 §1; 1967 c.577 §7; 1979
c.313 §1; 1983 c.338 §939; 1995 c.44 §1; 1999 c.526 §1; 2001 c.785 §6; 2003
c.225 §1; 2017 c.533 §5; 2019 c.658 §1; 2021 c.180 §5; 2021 c.351 §44a]
Notes of Decisions
Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 587 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 21× “Plaintiff assigns as error the sustaining of defendants' demurrers, contending as error the sustaining of defendants' demurrers, contending that his complaint stated a cause of action for negligence both at common law and negligence per se for violation of ORS 471.”
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Instead, as enacted, the legislation limited this court’s holding in Davis that a violation of ORS 471.130 (1975) constituted negligence per se, and it approved the common-law negligence standard set out in this court’s decision in Campbell , including the requirement that a…”
Miller v. City of Portland, 604 P.2d 1261 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 8× “The liability was based upon negligence per se for the violation of ORS 471.130(1), [2] which makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages without taking certain precautions regarding anyone about whom there is any doubt of his having reached 21 years of age.”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 6× “The court explained that “criminal or regulatory statutes are frequently enacted to cover situations in which no common law right of action has ever been established by courts. One of the most usual situations concerns injuries incurred by a person who has been given and has…”
Sager v. McClenden, 672 P.2d 697 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 6× “The basis of liability was negligence per se for violation of ORS 471.130(1), [3] which makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages to anyone without requiring proof of age if there is doubt whether the customer is 21 years old.”
Nearing v. Weaver, 670 P.2d 137 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 2× “2d 75 (1978) (violation of ORS 471.130(1), prohibiting sale of liquor to minors, as negligence per se).”
Klein v. Raysinger, 470 A.2d 507 (Pa. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Notwithstanding ORS 471.130 and sections 1 and 2 of this Act, no licensee, permittee or social host shall be liable to third persons injured by or through persons not having reached 21 years of age who obtained alcoholic beverages from the licensee, permittee or social host…”
Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff, 630 P.2d 840 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 2× “2d 75 (1978) (violation of ORS 471.130(1), prohibiting sale of liquor to minors, as negligence per se).”
Gattman v. Favro, 757 P.2d 402 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 2× “, 284 Or 351 , 587 P2d 75 (1978), the court held that a violation of another section of ORS chapter 471, ORS 471.130(1) — a liquor control statute which makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages to anyone without requiring proof of age if there is doubt…”
Smith v. Harms, 865 P.2d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “960 and ORS 471.130. ORS 30.960 provides: “(1) Notwithstanding ORS 30.”
US Mkt. 180, LLC v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 278 P.3d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “The first, OAR 845-006-0335(1)(a), reinforces a licensee’s statutory age-verification obligation under ORS 471.130 4 and explains that “reasonable doubt” under that statute — which triggers the obligation to verify a person’s age for an alcohol sale — “exists if the person…”
Moore v. Willis, 740 P.2d 192 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “[2] The allegation refers to a violation of ORS 471.130(1). [3] The allegation refers to a violation of ORS 471.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.130(1) — 16 cases
Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 587 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978).
“Plaintiff assigns as error the sustaining of defendants' demurrers, contending as error the sustaining of defendants' demurrers, contending that his complaint stated a cause of action for negligence both at common law and negligence per se for violation of ORS 471.”
Miller v. City of Portland, 604 P.2d 1261 (Or. 1980).
“The liability was based upon negligence per se for the violation of ORS 471.130(1), [2] which makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages without taking certain precautions regarding anyone about whom there is any doubt of his having reached 21 years of age.”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
“The court explained that “criminal or regulatory statutes are frequently enacted to cover situations in which no common law right of action has ever been established by courts. One of the most usual situations concerns injuries incurred by a person who has been given and has…”
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
“Instead, as enacted, the legislation limited this court’s holding in Davis that a violation of ORS 471.130 (1975) constituted negligence per se, and it approved the common-law negligence standard set out in this court’s decision in Campbell , including the requirement that a…”
Sager v. McClenden, 672 P.2d 697 (Or. 1983).
“The basis of liability was negligence per se for violation of ORS 471.130(1), [3] which makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell alcoholic beverages to anyone without requiring proof of age if there is doubt whether the customer is 21 years old.”
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.