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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 778.270 (2026)

Initiative and referendum procedures

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

      778.270 Initiative and referendum procedures. (1) Except as provided in this section, the electors of the Port of Portland may exercise the powers of the initiative and referendum, with reference to ordinances of the board, in accordance with ORS 255.135 to 255.205.

      (2) A referendum petition shall be filed not more than 30 days after the date the ordinance is adopted. [1973 c.178 §5; 1983 c.350 §327]

 

      778.405 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.410 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.415 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.420 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.425 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.430 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.435 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.440 [Amended by 1963 c.9 §41; repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.445 [Amended by 1971 c.647 §144; repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.450 [Amended by 1971 c.647 §145; repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.455 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.460 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.465 [Amended by 1963 c.9 §42; repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.470 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.475 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

      778.480 [Repealed by 1971 c.728 §138]

 

PENALTIES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2008–2008 · leading case: Norgaard v. Port of Portland, 196 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norgaard v. Port of Portland, 196 P.3d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “255, and it has the powers of initiative and referendum, ORS 778.270. In light of the Supreme Court’s consistent treatment of the Port as an instrumentality of the state, together with the statutory support for that treatment, we conclude that the first part of the Johnson test…”
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.