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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 479.990 (2026)

Penalties

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

      479.990 Penalties. (1) Any owner or occupant of any building or premises who fails to comply with any order provided for in ORS 479.170 and not appealed from, or with any such order of the State Fire Marshal upon appeal to the State Fire Marshal, shall be punished by a civil penalty of not more than $500 for each violation. All penalties, fees or forfeitures collected under the provisions of this subsection shall be paid into the State Treasury.

      (2) Violation of ORS 479.255, 479.260, 479.270, 479.280, 479.297 or 479.300, or rules adopted under ORS 479.255, 479.260, 479.270, 479.280, 479.297 or 479.300, is punishable by a civil penalty imposed by the State Fire Marshal in an amount not to exceed $250.

      (3) Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed as provided in ORS 183.745. [Amended by 1959 c.406 §30; subsection (5) enacted as 1959 c.406 §29; 1977 c.619 §1; subsection (6) enacted as 1979 c.642 §12; 1991 c.863 §58; 1997 c.647 §§6,7; 1999 c.307 §§14,15; 2001 c.411 §§27,28; 2011 c.97 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1961–1999 · leading case: State v. Engen, 993 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Engen, 993 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “020(1) (1969); ORS 479.990(1) (1969). 10 No case decided under those prior statutes required the state to prove that a defendant knew the particular type of controlled substance possessed.”
Nilsen v. Davidson Indus., Inc., 360 P.2d 307 (Or. 1961). “Criminal penalties for violations of the act are provided by ORS 479.990. This suit was commenced by the Labor Commissioner to obtain an order enjoining the defendants, Davidson Industries, Inc.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 479.990(1) — 1 case
State v. Engen, 993 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “020(1) (1969); ORS 479.990(1) (1969). 10 No case decided under those prior statutes required the state to prove that a defendant knew the particular type of controlled substance possessed.”
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.