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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 527.610 (2026)

Short title

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

      527.610 Short title. ORS 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990

(1) and 527.992 are known as the Oregon Forest Practices Act. [Formerly 527.010; 1991 c.634 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Bd. of Forestry, 69 P.3d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Bd. of Forestry, 69 P.3d 1238 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “700 provides, in part: “(1) Any operator, timber owner or landowner affected by any finding or order of the State Forester issued under ORS 527.610 to 527.770 and 527.992 may request a hearing within 30 days after issuance of the order.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy, 525 P.3d 864 (Or. 2023). “401(3)); and (4) authorizes EFSC to issue a site certificate even if 10 Compare EFSC’s decision to grant Idaho Power’s requests for an exception to and variance from the noise standards with EFSC’s response to Idaho Power’s request for an exemption from the reforestation…”
Sanok v. Grimes, 662 P.2d 693 (Or. 1983). “825, ORS 527.610 through 527.730, ORS 321.367(4), ORS 321.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “In both opinions, the Court of Appeals adhered to its interpretation of the land use planning system, which viewed the planning necessary to achieve Goal 5 as being unrelated to the Forest Practices Act (FPA), ORS 527.610 to 527.730. 12 *408 During the time between the Court of…”
Hale v. State, 314 P.3d 345 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). ““(4) ‘Forest practice’ means a mode of operation on forestland that: “(a) Is or may be used on forestland of similar nature; “(b) Is a generally accepted, reasonable and prudent method of complying with ORS 527.610 to 527.770 and the rules adopted pursuant thereto; “(c) Is or…”
Anantha v. Clarno, 461 P.3d 282 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “The Oregon Secretary of State rejected each proposed measure, concluding that each initiative petition violated the “single subject” requirement of Article IV, section 1(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that a “proposed law * * * shall embrace one subject only…”
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 878 P.2d 403 (Or. 1994). “482 or other statutory provisions; “(e) Does not include any rules, programs, decisions, determinations or activities carried out under ORS 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990(1) and 527.”
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “2 The proposed lot area is compatible with forest uses in the area and does not interfere with forest practices as defined and regulated under ORS 527.610 to 527.730; “424-4.3 The proposed lot area is consistent with ORS 527.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 737 P.2d 607 (Or. 1987). “For its part, the FPA, ORS 527.610 to 527.730, was designed “to encourage forest practices that maintain and enhance [the benefits and resources to be derived from forested lands], and that recognize varying forest conditions.”
Wilkeson v. Myers, 992 P.2d 456 (Or. 1999). · cites it 2× “ORS 527.610 et seq. The measure requires the practice of “sustainable forestry” on state and private land.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 735 P.2d 645 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “However, Doughton does not say or suggest that all standards which are embodied in county plans and ordinances must or can provide such specificity that they leave nothing for governing bodies and planning commissions to do except act ministerially.”
Gambee v. Dep't of Forestry, 81 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “In that order, the board determined that Gambee, who is a landowner and lumber broker, had conducted a timber harvest operation within the meaning of the Oregon Forest Practices Act, ORS 527.610 to 527.770, ORS 527.990(1), and ORS 527.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.