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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.062 (2026)

Substantial compliance with laws adequate for commission activities; construction of laws generally

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

      756.062 Substantial compliance with laws adequate for commission activities; construction of laws generally. (1) A substantial compliance with the requirements of the laws administered by the Public Utility Commission is sufficient to give effect to all the rules, orders, acts and regulations of the commission and they shall not be declared inoperative, illegal or void for any omission of a technical nature in respect thereto.

      (2) The provisions of such laws shall be liberally construed in a manner consistent with the directives of ORS 756.040 (1) to promote the public welfare, efficient facilities and substantial justice between customers and public and telecommunications utilities. [Formerly 757.025; 1973 c.776 §17; 1987 c.447 §78; 1995 c.733 §55; 2001 c.569 §2]

 

      756.064 [1971 c.655 §15; 1973 c.776 §18; repealed by 1975 c.605 §33]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014). · cites it 2× “” ORS 756.062(2). Reading those statutes together, a liberal construction of both the PUC’s power to “supervise and regulate public utilities” and its duty to protect ratepayers by obtaining adequate service at fair and reasonable rates supports the PUC’s implied authority to…”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 756.062(2). Of course, PUC's exercise of its authority is limited by the boundaries of the legislature's delegation, but the dissent fails to consider the breadth of that delegation.”
Dickinson v. Davis, 561 P.2d 1019 (Or. 1977). “The statement of the governing considerations need not be formal or technical; substantial compliance is sufficient under ORS 756.062. Administrative discretion is not a magic word.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Davis, 608 P.2d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “I believe my reading is bolstered by ORS 756.062(2) which calls for a liberal construction of the laws administered by the Commissioner.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “040 and ORS 756.062(2), which grant the PUC broad powers.”
Mkt. Transp., Ltd. v. Maudlin, 725 P.2d 914 (Or. 1986). “” ORS 756.062(2). Many of the terms and concepts used in the motor carrier statutes originated in common law.”
Crooked River Ranch Water Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 198 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “See ORS 756.062(1) (“A substantial compliance with the requirements of the laws administered by the [PUC] is sufficient to give effect to all the rules, orders, acts and regulations of the commission and they shall not be declared inoperative, illegal or void for any omission of…”
Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council v. Qwest, 527 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” The legislature has further directed that those laws admin- istered by the PUC “shall be liberally construed in a manner consistent with the directives of ORS 756.”
Gearhart v. PUC (Or. 2014). · cites it 2× “” ORS 756.062(2). Reading those statutes together, a liberal construction of both the PUC’s power to “supervise and regulate public utilities” and its duty to protect ratepayers by obtaining adequate service at fair and reasonable rates supports the PUC’s implied authority to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.062(1) — 1 case
Crooked River Ranch Water Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 198 P.3d 967 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “See ORS 756.062(1) (“A substantial compliance with the requirements of the laws administered by the [PUC] is sufficient to give effect to all the rules, orders, acts and regulations of the commission and they shall not be declared inoperative, illegal or void for any omission of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 756.062(2) — 7 cases
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 356 P.3d 216 (Or. 2014). “” ORS 756.062(2). Reading those statutes together, a liberal construction of both the PUC’s power to “supervise and regulate public utilities” and its duty to protect ratepayers by obtaining adequate service at fair and reasonable rates supports the PUC’s implied authority to…”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Katz, 841 P.2d 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “ORS 756.062(2). Of course, PUC's exercise of its authority is limited by the boundaries of the legislature's delegation, but the dissent fails to consider the breadth of that delegation.”
Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Davis, 608 P.2d 547 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “I believe my reading is bolstered by ORS 756.062(2) which calls for a liberal construction of the laws administered by the Commissioner.”
Gearhart v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 299 P.3d 533 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “040 and ORS 756.062(2), which grant the PUC broad powers.”
Mkt. Transp., Ltd. v. Maudlin, 725 P.2d 914 (Or. 1986). “” ORS 756.062(2). Many of the terms and concepts used in the motor carrier statutes originated in common law.”
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.