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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.110 (2026)

Exclusive nature of regulation of real estate licensees

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

      696.110 Exclusive nature of regulation of real estate licensees. The provisions of ORS 696.010 to 696.495, 696.600 to 696.785, 696.800 to 696.870 and 696.995 shall be exclusive and no political subdivision or agency of this state shall require or issue any license or charge any fee for licensing or regulation of individuals licensed under ORS 696.022. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of a county, city or town to levy and collect a general and nondiscriminatory license fee upon all businesses in the county, city or town or to levy a tax based upon the business conducted by any licensee or firm within the county, city or town. [Amended by 1955 c.322 §11; 1961 c.309 §3; 1965 c.617 §2; 1975 c.746 §1b; 2001 c.300 §12; 2007 c.319 §22]

 

      696.120 [Amended by 1977 c.649 §18; repealed by 2001 c.300 §84]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1970–1988 · leading case: Moody v. Hurricane Creek Lumber Co., 625 P.2d 1306 (Or. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moody v. Hurricane Creek Lumber Co., 625 P.2d 1306 (Or. 1981). “730, except subsection (2) of ORS 696.110.” Defendant contends that by virtue of ORS 696.”
Portland Distrib. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 763 P.2d 1189 (Or. 1988). “100, ORS 696.110(2). By employing the words “in connection with,” the legislature apparently intended to reach a larger group of local taxes than those taxes merely imposed on a particular business or activity.”
City of Beaverton v. Harris, 474 P.2d 771 (Or. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 3× “ORS 696.110 (2) provides that “no other license or fee” shall be required of any such licensee by any city or other political subdivision of the state.”
Moody v. Hurricane Creek Lumber Co., 616 P.2d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “730, except subsection (2) of ORS 696.110.” Title 59, OCLA, by virtue of Oregon Laws 1947, chapter 290, § 4, contained a substantially identical provision, and the Supreme Court did not ignore it in Klarr .”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.110(2) — 1 case
Portland Distrib. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 763 P.2d 1189 (Or. 1988). “100, ORS 696.110(2). By employing the words “in connection with,” the legislature apparently intended to reach a larger group of local taxes than those taxes merely imposed on a particular business or activity.”
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.