696.301
Grounds for discipline.
Subject to ORS 696.396, the Real Estate Commissioner may suspend or revoke the
real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any real estate
licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who has:
(1) Created a
reasonable probability of damage or injury to a person by making one or more
material misrepresentations or false promises in a matter related to
professional real estate activity.
(2) Represented,
attempted to represent or accepted compensation from a managing principal
broker other than the managing principal broker with whom the real estate
licensee is associated.
(3) Disregarded
or violated any provision of ORS 659A.421, 696.010 to 696.495, 696.600 to
696.785, 696.800 to 696.870 and 696.890 or any rule of the Real Estate Agency.
(4) Knowingly or
recklessly published materially misleading or untruthful advertising.
(5) Acted as an
agent and an undisclosed principal in any transaction.
(6) Intentionally
interfered with the contractual relations of others concerning real estate or
professional real estate activity.
(7) Intentionally
interfered with the exclusive representation or exclusive brokerage
relationship of another real estate licensee.
(8) Accepted
employment or compensation for the preparation of a competitive market analysis
or letter opinion that is contingent upon reporting a predetermined value or
for real estate in which the real estate licensee had an undisclosed interest.
(9) Represented a
taxpayer as described in ORS 305.239 or 309.100, contingent upon reporting a
predetermined value or for real estate in which the real estate licensee had an
undisclosed interest.
(10) Failed to
ensure, in any real estate transaction in which the real estate licensee
performed the closing, that the buyer and seller received a complete detailed
closing statement showing the amount and purpose of all receipts, adjustments
and disbursements.
(11) Has been
convicted of a felony or misdemeanor substantially related to the real estate
licensee’s trustworthiness or competence to engage in professional real estate
activity.
(12) Demonstrated
incompetence or untrustworthiness in performing any act for which the real
estate licensee is required to hold a license.
(13) Violated a
term, condition, restriction or limitation contained in an order issued by the
commissioner.
(14) Committed an
act of fraud or engaged in dishonest conduct substantially related to the
fitness of the applicant or real estate licensee to conduct professional real
estate activity, without regard to whether the act or conduct occurred in the
course of professional real estate activity.
(15) Engaged in
any conduct that is below the standard of care for the practice of professional
real estate activity in Oregon as established by the community of individuals
engaged in the practice of professional real estate activity in Oregon.
(16) If the
licensee is a managing principal broker, failed to exercise reasonable
supervision and control over the activities of associated real estate
licensees. [1975 c.746 §23 (enacted in lieu of 696.300); 1977 c.649 §41; 1981
c.617 §14; 1989 c.532 §8; 1991 c.5 §41; 1993 c.547 §9; 1993 c.570 §13; 1999
c.470 §2; 2001 c.300 §28; 2003 c.398 §10a; 2005 c.116 §22; 2005 c.393 §3; 2007
c.319 §10; 2007 c.337 §6; 2017 c.234 §20; 2025 c.389 §18]
Notes of Decisions
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 53 P.3d 436 (Or. 2002).
· cites it 28× “The order revoked the license of a real estate broker (broker) for engaging in conduct that the Commissioner determined to be subject to professional discipline under ORS 696.301 (1995), 1 set out post. On broker’s petition for judicial review, the Court of Appeals reversed the…”
Fox v. Real Est. Agency, 426 P.3d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 36× “396(1) to "provide by rule for the progressive discipline of real estate licensees and an objective method for investigation of complaints alleging grounds for discipline under ORS 696.301." The legislature enacted ORS 696.”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 55 P.3d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 19× “2 The issue on review concerns the meaning of ORS 696.301, which provides, in part: “The Real Estate Commissioner may suspend or revoke the real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who…”
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 28× “ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
Terway v. Real Est. Agency, 196 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “” *507 ORS 696.301 provided that the commissioner “may suspend or revoke the real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who has done any of the following: “(1) Knowingly or negligently…”
Sawyer v. Real Est. Agency, 342 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “3 The notice alleged that petitioner was subject to discipline under various provisions of ORS 696.301 4 for *49 her conduct in the two matters.”
Garton v. Real Est. Comm'r, 873 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 9× “) OAR 863-10-095 provides that a real estate licensee “who does not comply with any provision of [rules including one that petitioner was found to have violated] shall be deemed, prima facie, to be guilty of improper dealings under subsection (31) of ORS 696.301.” As can be…”
Realty Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 702 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “ORS 696.301(2), 696.301(3). The broker could terminate the salesperson’s occupational activity by returning the license to the commissioner.”
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“” ORS 696.301(5). Because ORS 696.820 required Zobel to provide the disclosure form to plaintiffs, the contents of the disclosure form do not constitute an actionable representation under ORS 646.”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 96 P.3d 1211 (Or. 2004).
· cites it 20× “ORS 696.301 (1995). 3 In the present case, the commissioner purported to act under the authority granted him to suspend or revoke a real estate license by ORS 696.”
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 997 P.2d 239 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 9× “” ORS 696.301. Petitioner argues that those statutory subsections, and ORS 696.”
Hodges v. Real Est. Div., Etc., 594 P.2d 1286 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 8× “Subsection (4) of ORS 696.301 authorizes the Commissioner to impose sanctions on a real estate licensee if the licensee fails, within a reasonable time, to surrender to the "rightful owner” any documents coming into his possession which belong to others.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(1) — 5 cases
Terway v. Real Est. Agency, 196 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“” *507 ORS 696.301 provided that the commissioner “may suspend or revoke the real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who has done any of the following: “(1) Knowingly or negligently…”
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(11) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(12) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(14) — 3 cases
Fox v. Real Est. Agency, 426 P.3d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“396(1) to "provide by rule for the progressive discipline of real estate licensees and an objective method for investigation of complaints alleging grounds for discipline under ORS 696.301." The legislature enacted ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(15) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(17) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(2) — 2 cases
Realty Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 702 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985).
“ORS 696.301(2), 696.301(3). The broker could terminate the salesperson’s occupational activity by returning the license to the commissioner.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(21) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(24) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(26) — 4 cases
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 53 P.3d 436 (Or. 2002).
“The order revoked the license of a real estate broker (broker) for engaging in conduct that the Commissioner determined to be subject to professional discipline under ORS 696.301 (1995), 1 set out post. On broker’s petition for judicial review, the Court of Appeals reversed the…”
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 997 P.2d 239 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“” ORS 696.301. Petitioner argues that those statutory subsections, and ORS 696.”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 55 P.3d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“2 The issue on review concerns the meaning of ORS 696.301, which provides, in part: “The Real Estate Commissioner may suspend or revoke the real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who…”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 96 P.3d 1211 (Or. 2004).
“ORS 696.301 (1995). 3 In the present case, the commissioner purported to act under the authority granted him to suspend or revoke a real estate license by ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(28) — 1 case
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(29) — 1 case
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(3) — 1 case
Fox v. Real Est. Agency, 426 P.3d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“396(1) to "provide by rule for the progressive discipline of real estate licensees and an objective method for investigation of complaints alleging grounds for discipline under ORS 696.301." The legislature enacted ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(30) — 1 case
Realty Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 702 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985).
“ORS 696.301(2), 696.301(3). The broker could terminate the salesperson’s occupational activity by returning the license to the commissioner.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(31) — 9 cases
Dearborn v. Real Est. Agency, 53 P.3d 436 (Or. 2002).
“The order revoked the license of a real estate broker (broker) for engaging in conduct that the Commissioner determined to be subject to professional discipline under ORS 696.301 (1995), 1 set out post. On broker’s petition for judicial review, the Court of Appeals reversed the…”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 55 P.3d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“2 The issue on review concerns the meaning of ORS 696.301, which provides, in part: “The Real Estate Commissioner may suspend or revoke the real estate license of any real estate licensee, reprimand any licensee or deny the issuance or renewal of a license to an applicant who…”
Garton v. Real Est. Comm'r, 873 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“) OAR 863-10-095 provides that a real estate licensee “who does not comply with any provision of [rules including one that petitioner was found to have violated] shall be deemed, prima facie, to be guilty of improper dealings under subsection (31) of ORS 696.301.” As can be…”
Kerley v. Real Est. Agency, 96 P.3d 1211 (Or. 2004).
“ORS 696.301 (1995). 3 In the present case, the commissioner purported to act under the authority granted him to suspend or revoke a real estate license by ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(32) — 5 cases
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
Hodges v. Real Est. Div., Etc., 594 P.2d 1286 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Subsection (4) of ORS 696.301 authorizes the Commissioner to impose sanctions on a real estate licensee if the licensee fails, within a reasonable time, to surrender to the "rightful owner” any documents coming into his possession which belong to others.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(4) — 5 cases
Fox v. Real Est. Agency, 426 P.3d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“396(1) to "provide by rule for the progressive discipline of real estate licensees and an objective method for investigation of complaints alleging grounds for discipline under ORS 696.301." The legislature enacted ORS 696.”
Garton v. Real Est. Comm'r, 873 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“) OAR 863-10-095 provides that a real estate licensee “who does not comply with any provision of [rules including one that petitioner was found to have violated] shall be deemed, prima facie, to be guilty of improper dealings under subsection (31) of ORS 696.301.” As can be…”
Hodges v. Real Est. Div., Etc., 594 P.2d 1286 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Subsection (4) of ORS 696.301 authorizes the Commissioner to impose sanctions on a real estate licensee if the licensee fails, within a reasonable time, to surrender to the "rightful owner” any documents coming into his possession which belong to others.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(5) — 1 case
Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc., 30 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“” ORS 696.301(5). Because ORS 696.820 required Zobel to provide the disclosure form to plaintiffs, the contents of the disclosure form do not constitute an actionable representation under ORS 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(6) — 3 cases
Pratt v. Real Est. Div., 709 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“ORS 696.301. He contends that the Commissioner misinterpreted the relevant statutes and imposed an unduly severe sanction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(7) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.301(9) — 1 case
Hodges v. Real Est. Div., Etc., 594 P.2d 1286 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Subsection (4) of ORS 696.301 authorizes the Commissioner to impose sanctions on a real estate licensee if the licensee fails, within a reasonable time, to surrender to the "rightful owner” any documents coming into his possession which belong to others.”
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.