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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.005 (2026)

Definitions

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

      607.005 Definitions. As used in this chapter:

      (1) “Class of livestock” means a class, species, genus or sex of livestock, including a class, species or genus of neutered livestock.

      (2) “Department” means the State Department of Agriculture.

      (3) “Federal land” means a tract of land containing 25,000 acres or more owned or administered by, or under the jurisdiction of, the United States and not subject to the laws of this state.

      (4) “Livestock” means animals of the bovine species, horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats and swine.

      (5) “Livestock district” means an area wherein it is unlawful for livestock or a class of livestock to run at large.

      (6) “Open range” means an area wherein livestock may lawfully be permitted to run at large. [Amended by 1957 c.604 §2; part derived from 1957 c.604 §§17,28; 1971 c.647 §132; 1981 c.413 §5; 1983 c.83 §107]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988). · cites it 4× “” ORS 607.005. In effect, this means that a livestock owner at all times must retain control over livestock within a livestock district.”
Dement Ranch v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 474 P.3d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “1 On appeal, Weyerhaeuser contends that “[t]he trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that ORS 607.005 et seq. imposes a contiguity requirement” to annex land into an existing livestock district.”
Bilderback v. United States, 558 F. Supp. 903 (D. Or. 1982). “” ORS 607.005(7). The Forest Service regulations would make it “unlawful” to allow livestock to run at large.”
Turrini v. Gulick, 517 P.2d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “See, ORS 607.005 (6), ORS 607.008 to 607.051, and ORS 607.”
Schwerdt v. Myers, 683 P.2d 547 (Or. 1984). “ORS 607.005 defines a “livestock district” as “an area wherein it is unlawful for livestock * * * to run at large.”
Galligher v. Meadow Acres Angus Ranch, LLC, 551 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” ORS 607.005(6). In creating open range law, the legislature “has seen fit to treat public highways specifically and at length.”
Galligher v. Meadow Acres Angus Ranch, LLC (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” ORS 607.005(6). In creating open range law, the legislature “has seen fit to treat public highways specifically and at length.”
Haneberg v. Myers, 951 P.2d 146 (Or. 1997). “, ORS 607.005(5) (a livestock district is “an area wherein it is unlawful for livestock or a class of livestock to run at large”); ORS 607.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.005(3) — 1 case
Dement Ranch v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 474 P.3d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “1 On appeal, Weyerhaeuser contends that “[t]he trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that ORS 607.005 et seq. imposes a contiguity requirement” to annex land into an existing livestock district.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.005(5) — 2 cases
Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988). “” ORS 607.005. In effect, this means that a livestock owner at all times must retain control over livestock within a livestock district.”
Haneberg v. Myers, 951 P.2d 146 (Or. 1997). “, ORS 607.005(5) (a livestock district is “an area wherein it is unlawful for livestock or a class of livestock to run at large”); ORS 607.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.005(6) — 4 cases
Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988). “” ORS 607.005. In effect, this means that a livestock owner at all times must retain control over livestock within a livestock district.”
Dement Ranch v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 474 P.3d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “1 On appeal, Weyerhaeuser contends that “[t]he trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that ORS 607.005 et seq. imposes a contiguity requirement” to annex land into an existing livestock district.”
Galligher v. Meadow Acres Angus Ranch, LLC, 551 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” ORS 607.005(6). In creating open range law, the legislature “has seen fit to treat public highways specifically and at length.”
Galligher v. Meadow Acres Angus Ranch, LLC (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “” ORS 607.005(6). In creating open range law, the legislature “has seen fit to treat public highways specifically and at length.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.005(7) — 1 case
Bilderback v. United States, 558 F. Supp. 903 (D. Or. 1982). “” ORS 607.005(7). The Forest Service regulations would make it “unlawful” to allow livestock to run at large.”
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.