Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.990 (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of May 2026

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

646.990 Penalties. (1) A person, firm or corporation, whether acting as principal, agent, officer or director, commits a Class B misdemeanor for each violation of a provision of ORS 646.010 to 646.180.

(2) Violation of ORS 646.725 or 646.730 is a Class B felony.

(3) Violation of ORS 646.910 is a Class D violation.

(4) Violation of a rule that the State Department of Agriculture adopts under ORS 646.915 is a Class D violation.

(5) Violation of ORS 646.920 is a Class D violation.

(6) A person that violates ORS 646.930 commits a Class C misdemeanor. [Amended by 1953 c.391 §2; 1967 c.144 §2; 1967 c.599 §4; subsection (8) enacted as 1969 c.395 §2; 1971 c.744 §24; 1975 c.255 §15; subsection (4) enacted as 1975 c.255 §16 (1); 1985 c.251 §28; subsection (4) enacted as 1985 c.468 §2 (2); subsection (5) enacted as 1985 c.468 §3 (3); subsection (6) enacted as 1985 c.468 §4 (2); subsection (7) enacted as 1985 c.751 §1 (4); subsection (3) enacted as 1987 c.888 §5; 1999 c.1051 §213; 2011 c.597 §258; 2017 c.141 §4; 2023 c.103 §7]

646.992 [1973 c.456 §3; renumbered 646A.352 in 2007]

_______________

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1993 · leading case: Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). · cites it 2× “ORS 646.990 and 646.638. We believe there is merit to plaintiff's argument that it is in the cases of more aggravated wrongful conduct that criminal prosecution is apt to occur and to adopt the change which defendants urge will tend to shield those malefactors to a greater…”

State v. Soriano, 684 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “170, which provides that “[n]o information so obtained may be used against the defendant as a basis for a criminal prosecution under ORS 646.990(1)[,]” provides use immunity to the extent that it is an immunity statute at all.”

State v. Graf, 853 P.2d 277 (Or. 1993). “549(2), which provides: ‘[N]o person who testifies or produces evidence in accordance with subsection (1) of this section shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture concerning any matter about which he testified or produced evidence,’ is a transactional…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.990(1) — 2 cases

State v. Soriano, 684 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “170, which provides that “[n]o information so obtained may be used against the defendant as a basis for a criminal prosecution under ORS 646.990(1)[,]” provides use immunity to the extent that it is an immunity statute at all.”

State v. Graf, 853 P.2d 277 (Or. 1993). “549(2), which provides: ‘[N]o person who testifies or produces evidence in accordance with subsection (1) of this section shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture concerning any matter about which he testified or produced evidence,’ is a transactional…”

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.