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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.715 (2026)

Declaration of purpose

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

      646.715 Declaration of purpose. (1) The Legislative Assembly deems it to be necessary and the purpose of ORS 646.705 to 646.805 and 646.990 is to encourage free and open competition in the interest of the general welfare and economy of the state, by preventing monopolistic and unfair practices, combination and conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce, and for that purpose to provide means to enjoin such practices and provide remedies for those injured by them.

      (2) Without limiting the scope of ORS 646.705 to 646.805 and 646.990, it is the legislative purpose that it apply to intrastate trade or commerce, and to interstate trade or commerce involving an actual or threatened injury to a person or property located in this state. The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of ORS 646.705 to 646.805 and 646.990. [1975 c.255 §3; 2001 c.415 §1]

 

      646.720 [Repealed by 1953 c.391 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2019 · leading case: In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.715 . However, federal law is merely persuasive, and Oregon’s binding antitrust statute of limitations specifically uses the term accrue.”
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 646.715 (2) (West) ("The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of [Oregon's antitrust statute].”
GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “" Oregon Rev. Stat. § 646.715(2). As already discussed with respect to the antitrust laws of the Nexus States, the allegations of GEICO's complaint do not establish a connection between Defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct and any relevant intrastate activities engaged in by…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “” Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.715. Oregon does not deny that this suit is primarily of an interstate nature or that the FTC, in the parallel action, is exercising federal jurisdiction.”
Volm v. Legacy Health Sys., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2002). “Oregon’s Antitrust Act To the extent that the state antitrust claim overlaps the federal claim, the analysis is identical, ORS 646.715(2) (“decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority”), and summary…”
Golden West Insulation, Inc. v. Stardust Inv. Corp., 615 P.2d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “According to ORS 646.715(2): " * * * The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of ORS 136.”
Nw. Med. Labs., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc., 794 P.2d 428 (Or. 1990). · cites it 2× “ORS 646.715(2) provides in part: “The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of ORS [646.”
Willamette Dental Grp., P.C. v. Oregon Dental Serv. Corp., 882 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 646.715(2). The United States Supreme Court has established elements for the offenses of monopolization and attempted monopolization.”
Kovac v. Crooked River Ranch Club & Maint. Ass'n, 63 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court rejected that theory, holding that defendant’s injury, if any, “was a result of the *550 denial both by the Jefferson County Planning Commission and by the Jefferson County Commission. The Court believes that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, based on…”
Time Ins. v. Astrazeneca AB, 52 F. Supp. 3d 705 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “§ 57-1-15 (same); Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.715 (same); R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b) (same); S.”
Nw. Med. Labs., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc., 775 P.2d 863 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “The plan restrains trade in the sense that providers have some degree of control over who participates as a provider and, by its nature, the plan eliminates competing health care providers with respect to persons who are covered by the plan.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.715(2) — 7 cases
GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “" Oregon Rev. Stat. § 646.715(2). As already discussed with respect to the antitrust laws of the Nexus States, the allegations of GEICO's complaint do not establish a connection between Defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct and any relevant intrastate activities engaged in by…”
Volm v. Legacy Health Sys., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2002). “Oregon’s Antitrust Act To the extent that the state antitrust claim overlaps the federal claim, the analysis is identical, ORS 646.715(2) (“decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority”), and summary…”
Golden West Insulation, Inc. v. Stardust Inv. Corp., 615 P.2d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “According to ORS 646.715(2): " * * * The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of ORS 136.”
Nw. Med. Labs., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oregon, Inc., 794 P.2d 428 (Or. 1990). “ORS 646.715(2) provides in part: “The decisions of federal courts in construction of federal law relating to the same subject shall be persuasive authority in the construction of ORS [646.”
Willamette Dental Grp., P.C. v. Oregon Dental Serv. Corp., 882 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 646.715(2). The United States Supreme Court has established elements for the offenses of monopolization and attempted monopolization.”
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.