607.510 Stock
running at large and grazing on certain state highways. No person shall allow cattle,
horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine or other livestock of any kind, to run at
large, be pastured, staked or tethered upon the following state highways:
(1) That part of
the Oregon Coast Highway, State Highway No. 9, extending from the north
boundary of Tillamook County to the south boundary of Lane County.
(2) That part of
the Alsea Highway, State Highway No. 27, from its junction with the
Corvallis-Newport Highway in Benton County to Waldport in Lincoln County.
(3) That part of
the Corvallis-Newport Highway, State Highway No. 33, from Corvallis in Benton
County to Newport in Lincoln County.
(4) That part of
the Salmon River Highway, State Highway No. 39, from Valley Junction in Polk
County to a connection with the Oregon Coast Highway at or near Otis in Lincoln
County.
(5) That part of
the Wilson River Highway, State Highway No. 37, from the east boundary of
Tillamook County to the intersection of the Wilson River Highway with the
Oregon Coast Highway, which is State Highway No. 9. [Amended by 1971 c.579 §8;
1977 c.176 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1981–1988 · leading case:
Watzig v. Tobin, 642 P.2d 651 (Or. 1982).
Watzig v. Tobin, 642 P.2d 651 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 12× “8 IV APPLICATION OF ORS 607.510 The accident occurred on a section of the coast highway which is governed by ORS 607.”
Schwerdt v. Myers, 683 P.2d 547 (Or. 1984).
· cites it 6× “On appeal the plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the defendants were negligent as a matter of law for violating another statute in ORS chapter 607, ORS 607.510, which states in part: “No person shall allow cattle * * * to run at…”
Dunlap v. Dickson, 765 P.2d 203 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Tobin, 292 Or 645 , 642 P2d 651 (1982) (criminal negligence required to prove violation of ORS 607.510, a related criminal statute) with Schwerdt v.”
Schwerdt v. Myers, 669 P.2d 1147 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 9× “* * * * A violation of ORS 607.510, like a violation of ORS 607.”
Watzig v. Tobin, 623 P.2d 1121 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “510, raised a permissible inference of negligence on the part of defendants, and that the burden was on defendants to go forward with evidence explaining the presence of the cow and to establish that they exercised reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent the cow from…”
Dunlap v. Dickson, 754 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“The interpretation in Watzig of the later-enacted criminal prohibition, ORS 607.510, is of no assistance. In the trial court, defendant drew an analogy to ORS 607.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 607.510(1) — 1 case
Schwerdt v. Myers, 669 P.2d 1147 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“* * * * A violation of ORS 607.510, like a violation of ORS 607.”
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.