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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.618 (2026)

Investigative demand; petition to modify

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

      646.618 Investigative demand; petition to modify. (1) Except as provided in ORS 646.633, when it appears to the prosecuting attorney that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice declared to be unlawful by ORS 646.607 or 646.608, the prosecuting attorney may execute in writing and cause to be served an investigative demand upon any person who is believed to have information, documentary material or physical evidence relevant to the alleged or suspected violation. The investigative demand shall require such person, under oath or otherwise, to appear and testify, to answer written interrogatories, or to produce relevant documentary material or physical evidence for examination, at such reasonable time and place as may be stated in the investigative demand, or to do any of the foregoing, concerning conduct of any trade or commerce which is the subject matter of the investigation.

      (2) At any time before the return date specified in an investigative demand, or within 20 days after the demand has been served, whichever period is shorter, a petition to extend the return date, or to modify or set aside the demand, stating good cause including privileged material, may be filed in the appropriate court. [1971 c.744 §14; 1973 c.235 §3; 1977 c.195 §6; 2010 c.94 §3]

 

      646.620 [Repealed by 1953 c.391 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 26× “If anything, the nexus between ORS 646.618 and ORS 646.632 is closer than the nexus between ORS 167.”
Garganese v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 864 P.2d 364 (Or. 1993). · cites it 16× “See ORS 646.618 (2) (authorizing procedure). 5 After a hearing, the circuit court ordered NAE to comply with DOJ’s investigative demand.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). · cites it 3× “The department argued that the proceeding was not sufficiently “separate and distinct” to qualify as a special statutory proceeding, because it was only a constituent part of a trade practices enforcement action under a related statute, ORS 646.”
Vendall Mktg. Corp. v. Dept. of Just., 863 P.2d 1263 (Or. 1993). · cites it 11× “In response, DOJ points out that this court has stated that, under ORS 646.618, the “Attorney General * * * may make an ‘investigative demand’ to determine whether any violation has occurred.”
Haeger v. Johnson, 548 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “The Attorney General, through the Consumer Protection Division of the Department of Justice, served an investigative demand pursuant to ORS 646.618 on petitioner, division manager of Public Finance Corporation, ordering him to appear and testify in connection with an…”
Cullen v. Inv. Strategies, Inc., 911 P.2d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “The petitioner asserted that the UTPA’s investigative demand provisions, ORS 646.618, did not apply because his employer was not “engaged in the sale of goods and services” subject to the Act.”
Raudebaugh v. Action Pest Control, Inc., 650 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “(Offers to engage in consumer transactions are covered because, although a private right of action is an important part of the UTPA, the Act's principal focus is on preventive action by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General needs to be able to take action against…”
State Ex Rel. Redden v. Disc. Fabrics, Inc., 615 P.2d 1034 (Or. 1980). “ORS 646.618. They may also bring suit to enjoin further violations, ORS 646.”
Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc., 566 P.2d 1177 (Or. 1977). “The Attorney General or county district attorneys may bring "investigative demands” to determine if a violation has occurred under ORS 646.618. They may also bring suit to enjoin violations under ORS 646.”
Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “DOJ served the Gordon firm with a “civil investigative demand” (CID) pursuant to ORS 646.618, 4 in which it included a demand for “Exhibit A Documents to be Produced” and “Exhibit B Interrogatories.”
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 306 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “, ORS 646.618 (authorizing investigations); ORS 646.”
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “, 335 Or 404 , 413 n 5, 69 P3d 710 (2003); see ORS 646.618 (authorizing investigations); ORS 646.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.618(1) — 8 cases
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “If anything, the nexus between ORS 646.618 and ORS 646.632 is closer than the nexus between ORS 167.”
Garganese v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 864 P.2d 364 (Or. 1993). “See ORS 646.618 (2) (authorizing procedure). 5 After a hearing, the circuit court ordered NAE to comply with DOJ’s investigative demand.”
Vendall Mktg. Corp. v. Dept. of Just., 863 P.2d 1263 (Or. 1993). “In response, DOJ points out that this court has stated that, under ORS 646.618, the “Attorney General * * * may make an ‘investigative demand’ to determine whether any violation has occurred.”
Haeger v. Johnson, 548 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “The Attorney General, through the Consumer Protection Division of the Department of Justice, served an investigative demand pursuant to ORS 646.618 on petitioner, division manager of Public Finance Corporation, ordering him to appear and testify in connection with an…”
Gordon v. Rosenblum, 370 P.3d 850 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “DOJ served the Gordon firm with a “civil investigative demand” (CID) pursuant to ORS 646.618, 4 in which it included a demand for “Exhibit A Documents to be Produced” and “Exhibit B Interrogatories.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.618(2) — 6 cases
Garganese v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 864 P.2d 364 (Or. 1993). “See ORS 646.618 (2) (authorizing procedure). 5 After a hearing, the circuit court ordered NAE to comply with DOJ’s investigative demand.”
State v. Branstetter, 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001). “The department argued that the proceeding was not sufficiently “separate and distinct” to qualify as a special statutory proceeding, because it was only a constituent part of a trade practices enforcement action under a related statute, ORS 646.”
State v. Branstetter, 1 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “If anything, the nexus between ORS 646.618 and ORS 646.632 is closer than the nexus between ORS 167.”
Vendall Mktg. Corp. v. Dept. of Just., 863 P.2d 1263 (Or. 1993). “In response, DOJ points out that this court has stated that, under ORS 646.618, the “Attorney General * * * may make an ‘investigative demand’ to determine whether any violation has occurred.”
Little v. State, 883 P.2d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
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.