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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 673.060 (2026)

C.P.A. examination; scope; rules

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

      673.060 C.P.A. examination; scope; rules. (1) The certified public accountant examination must test a person’s knowledge of the subjects of accounting and auditing and other related subjects as provided by the Oregon Board of Accountancy by rule.

      (2) The board may contract with any organization, governmental or private, for examination development and administration. [Amended by 1967 c.62 §1; 1971 c.217 §2; 1975 c.440 §6; 1983 c.255 §1; 1989 c.771 §1; 1991 c.187 §1; 1993 c.300 §1; 1997 c.95 §1; 1999 c.322 §8; 2003 c.5 §1; 2007 c.112 §4; 2015 c.451 §8; 2025 c.132 §3]

 

      673.070 [Repealed by 1979 c.84 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1993–1998 · leading case: Dinkins v. Bd. of Acct., 846 P.2d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dinkins v. Bd. of Acct., 846 P.2d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “The Board based the denial on its conclusion that petitioner “has not obtained the requisite experience” under ORS 673.060(1). In the opinion portion of its order, the Board explained that petitioner’s experience was “too old to demonstrate that she is now qualified to be…”
Coast Sec. Mortg. Corp. v. Real Est. Agency, 964 P.2d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” ORS 673.060(1) (emphasis added). In contrast, in McKay v.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 673.060(1): 2 cases
Dinkins v. Bd. of Acct., 846 P.2d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “The Board based the denial on its conclusion that petitioner “has not obtained the requisite experience” under ORS 673.060(1). In the opinion portion of its order, the Board explained that petitioner’s experience was “too old to demonstrate that she is now qualified to be…”
Coast Sec. Mortg. Corp. v. Real Est. Agency, 964 P.2d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” ORS 673.060(1) (emphasis added). In contrast, in McKay v.”
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.