780.040 When
landowner may construct wharf.
(1) The owner of any land lying upon any navigable stream or other like water,
and within the corporate limits of any incorporated town or within the
boundaries of any port, may construct a wharf upon the same, and extend the
wharf into the stream or other like water beyond low-water mark so far as may
be necessary for the use and accommodation of any ships, boats or vessels
engaged exclusively in the receipt and discharge of goods or merchandise or in
the performance of governmental functions upon the stream or other like water.
(2) As used in
this section, “wharf” does not include new lands created upon submersible or
submerged lands by artificial fill or deposit. [Amended by 1963 c.125 §1; 1973
c.328 §2]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Div. of State Lands v. Norris, 50 P.3d 595 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Defendants’ second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in concluding that ORS 780.040 did not authorize defendants’ structure.”
Brusco Towboat Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Land Bd., 589 P.2d 712 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 4× “ORS 780.040 provides: " '(1) The owner of any land lying upon any navigable stream or other like water, and within the corporate limits of any incorporated town or within the boundaries of any port, may construct a wharf *632 upon the same, and extend the wharf into the stream…”
Smith Tug & Barge Co. v. Columbia-Pac. Towing Corp., 443 P.2d 205 (Or. 1968).
· cites it 4× “There was already in existence the statute authorizing the owner of any land "lying upon any navigable stream" to construct a wharf into the stream beyond the low-water mark, now ORS 780.040, referred to as the wharfing statute.”
Brusco Towboat Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Land Bd., 567 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “ORS 780.040 provides: "(1) The owner of any land lying upon any navigable stream or other like water, and within the corporate limits of any incorporated town or within the boundaries of any port, may construct a wharf upon the same, and extend the wharf into the stream or other…”
Port of Portland v. REEDER, 280 P.2d 324 (Or. 1955).
· cites it 4× “It would seem that if the maintenance of piling for ten years was insufficient to establish prescriptive right against an adjoining owner, it would surely be insufficient to establish a vested right as against the public, if such piling interfered with the public rights of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 780.040(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Div. of State Lands v. Norris, 50 P.3d 595 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Defendants’ second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in concluding that ORS 780.040 did not authorize defendants’ structure.”
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.