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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.160 (2026)

Presumption of damages

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

      646.160 Presumption of damages. In any proceedings instituted or action brought in pursuance of the provisions of ORS 646.140 or 646.150, the plaintiff, upon proof that the plaintiff has been unlawfully discriminated against by the defendant, shall conclusively be presumed to have sustained damages equal to the monetary amount or equivalent of the unlawful discrimination; and, in addition thereto, may establish such further damages, if any, as the plaintiff may have sustained as a result of the discrimination.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1978–1991 · leading case: Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 798 P.2d 656 (Or. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 798 P.2d 656 (Or. 1990). · cites it 12× “We allowed review to consider two issues of first impression under Oregon’s Anti-Price Discrimination Law: What kind of evidence is legally sufficient to present a factual *337 issue of competition, and what is the proper measure of damages under the “such further damages”…”
Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 582 P.2d 1365 (Or. 1978). “” ORS 646.160. The fourth of these elements of a case against the recipient of a discriminatory concession requires proof that the *217 concession was a violation of the statute by his seller or purveyor.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 806 P.2d 123 (Or. 1991). · cites it 3× “040(1), breach of contract, and intentional interference with business and economic relations.”
Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 779 P.2d 1061 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “The damages for the 1982 models are “presumed” damages under ORS 646.160, 8 and defendant does not challenge the propriety of that award.”
Cain v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 757 F. Supp. 1120 (D. Or. 1991). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that he does not have to demonstrate that he suffered a competitive injury, relying on ORS 646.160: upon proof that the plaintiff has been unlawfully discriminated against by the defendant, [plaintiff] shall conclusively be presumed to have sustained damages…”
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.