646.642 Civil
penalties. (1) Any
person who willfully violates the terms of an injunction issued under ORS
646.632 shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty to be set by the
court of not more than $25,000 per violation. For the purposes of this section,
the court issuing the injunction shall retain jurisdiction and the cause shall
be continued, and in such cases the prosecuting attorney acting in the name of
the state may petition for recovery of civil penalties.
(2) Any person
who willfully violates any provision of an assurance of voluntary compliance
approved and filed with an appropriate court under ORS 646.632 shall forfeit
and pay to the state a civil penalty to be set by the court of not more than
$25,000 per violation. Any prosecuting attorney may apply to an appropriate
court for recovery of such civil penalty. In any action brought by a
prosecuting attorney under this section, and in any contempt action brought by
a prosecuting attorney pursuant to ORS 646.632 (4), the court may award to the
prevailing party, in addition to any other relief provided by law, reasonable
attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal.
(3) In any suit
brought under ORS 646.632, if the court finds that a person is willfully using
or has willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful by ORS
646.607 or 646.608, the prosecuting attorney, upon petition to the court, may
recover, on behalf of the state, a civil penalty to be set by the court of not
exceeding $25,000 per violation. [1971 c.744 §17; 1975 c.437 §5; 1977 c.195 §10;
1989 c.745 §2; 1995 c.618 §100]
646.643 [1991 c.906 §3; repealed by 2024
c.100 §31]
Notes of Decisions
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001).
· cites it 2× “Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.642(3) (1997). In respondent's view, each of the thousands of pieces of promotional material containing a picture of the PST that Cooper distributed warranted the maximum fine.”
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.642 (civil penalties); ORS 646.636 (authorizing court to “make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real…”
Eckles v. State of Oregon, 760 P.2d 846 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 2× “526" is ORS 646.642. [3] Soon after the 1982 legislation was passed, SAIF filed a complaint against the State of Oregon asserting that both 1982 laws were unconstitutional.”
Est. of Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 135 P.3d 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “" ORS 646.642(3). The facts in this case could easily support a conclusion that defendant willfully misrepresented that Merit brand cigarettes were a less risky alternative to full-flavor cigarettes when it knew that they were not.”
Lithia Motors, Inc. v. Yovan, 204 P.3d 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “ORS 646.642. [1] The legislature's decision to establish a penalty for unlawful trade practice violations up to $25,000 for each violation affects the due process analysis that applies to punitive damage awards on unlawful trade practice claims involving small compensatory…”
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc., 17 P.3d 473 (Or. 2001).
“In addition, the UTPA authorizes the imposition of other civil remedies, including civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, ORS 646.642, restitution, ORS 646.636, and attorney fees, ORS 646.”
Transamerica Ins. v. Bloomfield, 637 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “This court determined that whether reliance was a necessary element depended upon the type of violation alleged and that reliance was not required in nondisclosure cases. Thus, reliance may not be an element of a private cause of suit under ORS 646.”
Lithia Medford LM, Inc. v. Yovan, 295 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “ORS 646.642(1) provides: “Any person who willfully violates the terms of an injunction issued under ORS 646.”
State ex rel. Rosenblum v. Johnson & Johnson, 362 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “632; ORS 646.642. In addition to alleging the facts recounted above, the amended complaint asserted four claims for relief based on various UTPA violations.”
Weigel v. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet Co., 690 P.2d 488 (Or. 1984).
“632, which are enforceable by statutory penalties, ORS 646.642, and possible loss of licenses and franchises, ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.642(1) — 3 cases
Lithia Medford LM, Inc. v. Yovan, 295 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 646.642(1) provides: “Any person who willfully violates the terms of an injunction issued under ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.642(2) — 1 case
State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC, 497 P.3d 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“632 (authorizing officials to bring action in name of the state; injunctive relief); ORS 646.642 (civil penalties); ORS 646.636 (authorizing court to “make such additional orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any moneys or property, real…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.642(3) — 11 cases
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001).
“Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.642(3) (1997). In respondent's view, each of the thousands of pieces of promotional material containing a picture of the PST that Cooper distributed warranted the maximum fine.”
Est. of Schwarz v. Philip Morris Inc., 135 P.3d 409 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“" ORS 646.642(3). The facts in this case could easily support a conclusion that defendant willfully misrepresented that Merit brand cigarettes were a less risky alternative to full-flavor cigarettes when it knew that they were not.”
Transamerica Ins. v. Bloomfield, 637 P.2d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“This court determined that whether reliance was a necessary element depended upon the type of violation alleged and that reliance was not required in nondisclosure cases. Thus, reliance may not be an element of a private cause of suit under ORS 646.”
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.