Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.010

Designation and scope of ORS 646.010 to 646.180

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

      646.010 Designation and scope of ORS 646.010 to 646.180. ORS 646.010 to 646.180 shall be known and designated as the Anti-price Discrimination Law; and the inhibitions against discrimination in those sections shall embrace any scheme of special concessions or rebates, any collateral contracts or agreements or any device of any nature whereby discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected in violation of the spirit and intent of ORS 646.010 to 646.180.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance (1978) or · cites it 2× “">511 P2d 363 (1973), the purpose of the act is to protect the public from "any scheme of special concessions or rebates, any collateral contracts or agreements or any device of any nature whereby discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected,” quoting ORS 646.010.…”
Forster v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. (1985) orctapp · cites it 9× “ORS 646.010 to 646.180. The jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiff $200,000, and judgment was entered trebling that amount pursuant to ORS 646.”
Redmond Ready-Mix, Inc. v. Coats (1978) or · cites it 4× “This is a suit under the Oregon Anti-Price Discrimination Law, ORS 646.010 et seq., between competitors in the ready-mix concrete industry in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1990) or · cites it 3× “150 provides: “If no injunctive relief is sought or required, any person injured by any violation of ORS 646.010 to 646.180 may maintain an action for damages alone in any court of general jurisdiction in this state.”
Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc. (1982) orctapp · cites it 2× “[1] ORS 646.010 — .180. The acts alleged consisted of falsely reporting and representing that plaintiffs' home-to-be was free from insect infestation and that there was no damage from fungus growth, rot or other wood-destroying organisms.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (1989) orctapp “, appeals from a judgment for plaintiff The Yamaha Store of Bend, its former franchisee, in this action under ORS 646.010 to ORS 646.180, the Anti-Price Discrimination Law (the Act).”
Pro's Closet v. City of Boulder (2019) orctapp “…Stat. § 08.76.590 (21)-(23) (2018); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 646.010 (2017); R.I. Gen. Laws § 19-26-1 (2018). Second, many states’ statutes, perhaps in the service of loophole closing, include not just persons who lend money secured by personal property, but also persons who buy…”
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.