696.040 Single
act sufficient to constitute professional real estate activity. One act or transaction of
professional real estate activity is sufficient to constitute engaging in
professional real estate activity, within the meaning of this chapter. [Amended
by 1955 c.322 §8; 1977 c.649 §12]
696.050 [Amended by 1955 c.322 §9; 1961
c.471 §1; 1963 c.412 §1; 1969 c.515 §1; 1969 c.674 §3; 1971 c.671 §1; 1973
c.416 §3; 1973 c.827 §78; 1974 c.36 §21; 1975 c.746 §3; 1977 c.191 §1; 1977
c.649 §13; 1981 c.617 §5; 1983 c.258 §1; 1989 c.532 §6; 1989 c.724 §3; 1991 c.5
§29; repealed by 2001 c.300 §84]
696.060 [Amended by 1975 c.746 §4; 1977
c.649 §14; 1981 c.617 §6; repealed by 2001 c.300 §84]
696.070 [Amended by 1963 c.412 §2;
repealed by 1977 c.649 §53 and 1977 c.842 §17]
696.080 [Amended by 1975 c.746 §5; 1977
c.649 §15; 1981 c.617 §6a; 1987 c.611 §14; repealed by 2001 c.300 §84]
696.085 [1991 c.462 §2; repealed by 2001
c.300 §84]
696.090 [Amended by 1955 c.322 §10;
repealed by 1977 c.649 §16 and 1977 c.842 §17 (694.169 enacted in lieu of
696.090)]
696.100 [Amended by 1963 c.412 §3; 1977
c.649 §17; repealed by 2001 c.300 §84]
Notes of Decisions
Jolma v. Steinbock, 596 P.2d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “” *664 ORS 696.040 2 provided that the doing of any one of the acts described in subsection (8) or (9) of ORS 696.”
Smith v. Real Est. Agency, 939 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
““One act or transaction of professional real estate activity is sufficient to constitute engaging in professional real estate activity * * ORS 696.040. Arranging a single real estate transaction in which the person neither has nor obtains a property interest is encompassed by…”
Carnahan v. McCarver, 463 P.2d 657 (Or. 1970).
“A real estate broker, insofar as the present matter is concerned, is defined as “any person who, for another and for compensation or with the intention or in the expectation or upon the promise of receiving or collecting compensation: * * * [a]ssists or directs in the procuring…”
Moody v. Hurricane Creek Lumber Co., 616 P.2d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Defendant acknowledges the similarity of the case at bar to Klarr , but contends that the case was wrongly decided because the Supreme Court ignored the applicability of ORS 696.040 (which, at the time Klarr was decided, was § 59-103, OCLA) which expressly provided that one act…”
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.