Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.155 (2026)

Impoundment for harming or chasing livestock; determination of fact; costs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

609.155 Impoundment for harming or chasing livestock; determination of fact; costs. (1) In a county with a dog control program, upon finding a dog engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock or upon receipt from a complainant of evidence that a dog has been so engaged, the dog control officer or other law enforcement officer shall impound the dog.

(2) If there is reason to believe that reasonable testing of a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, including but not limited to a fecal examination or examination of the teeth of the dog, will provide substantial further evidence as to whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the county shall provide for the administration of the tests by a licensed veterinarian.

(3)(a) After the completion of tests administered pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and allowing an opportunity for a hearing under ORS 609.158, the county shall determine whether the dog has been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock. If the county determines that the dog has been so engaged, the county shall take action as provided under ORS 609.162 and 609.163. In addition to any action taken under ORS 609.162 and 609.163, the county may require that the dog owner pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during impoundment. If the county determines that the dog has not been engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock, the dog shall be released to its owner and, if the dog had been impounded upon receipt of evidence from a complainant, the complainant shall pay the costs of keeping and testing the dog during the impoundment.

(b) Notwithstanding ORS 609.090, a dog impounded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall not be released until a determination is made by the county pursuant to this subsection. [1975 c.749 §4; 1977 c.802 §9; 1999 c.756 §20]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2008 · leading case: Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 17× “” In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.”

Parker v. Parker, 195 P.3d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 37 , 37 n 3, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), rev den, 326 Or 389 (1998) (interpreting ORS 609.155, which provides for impoundment of dogs found “killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock”).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.155(1) — 1 case

Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.155(3) — 1 case

Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.155(3)(a) — 1 case

Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.155(3)(b) — 1 case

Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” In other words, ORS 609.155 is authority discrete from ORS 609.”

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.