609.060 Notice
of county prohibition on dogs running at large. (1) If the governing body of a
county by ordinance, or a measure approved by the electors in an election
conducted in accordance with ORS chapter 250, prohibits dogs from running at
large, the county shall give notice, by publication in a newspaper having a
general circulation in the county.
(2) After 60 days
from the date of the notice, every person keeping a dog shall prevent the dog
from running at large in any county or city where prohibited. A person who is
the keeper of a dog commits a Class B violation if the dog runs at large where
prohibited. [Amended by 1965 c.499 §1; 1977 c.802 §5; 1999 c.658 §5; 2011 c.597
§§248,317]
609.070 [Repealed by 1969 c.677 §5]
609.080 [Amended by 1959 c.618 §2;
repealed by 1967 c.495 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case:
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “100 provided that a county governing body, in setting fees for dog licenses, was authorized to “prescribe a penalty in an additional sum” in the event that a license was not procured on time.”
State v. Girt, 321 Or. App. 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Defendant appeals from the trial court’s judgment on a violation citation that found her guilty of two counts of dog running at large, ORS 609.060, and three counts of maintaining a dog that is a public nuisance, ORS 609.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.060(3) — 1 case
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“100 provided that a county governing body, in setting fees for dog licenses, was authorized to “prescribe a penalty in an additional sum” in the event that a license was not procured on time.”
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.