Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.400 (2026)

Suspension or revocation for out-of-state conviction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

809.400 Suspension or revocation for out-of-state conviction. (1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the Department of Transportation may suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any resident of this state upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person in another jurisdiction of an offense therein that, if committed in this state, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the driving privileges of the person. A suspension or revocation under this subsection shall be initiated within 30 days of receipt of notice of the conviction. Violation of a suspension or revocation imposed under this subsection shall have the same legal effects and consequences as it would if the offense committed in the other jurisdiction had been committed in this jurisdiction.

(b) The department may not suspend or revoke noncommercial driving privileges under this subsection unless notice of conviction is received within 180 days of the date of the conviction.

(2) The department may suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any resident of this state upon receiving notice from another state, territory, federal possession or district or province of Canada that the person’s driving privileges in that jurisdiction have been suspended or revoked. Violation of the suspension or revocation shall have the same legal effects and consequences as it would if the suspension or revocation had been imposed initially in this state upon the same grounds. The suspension or revocation under this subsection shall continue until the person suspended or revoked furnishes evidence of any of the following:

(a) Compliance with the law of the other jurisdiction or the restoration of driving privileges in that jurisdiction.

(b) That the revocation or suspension in the other jurisdiction was not under circumstances that would require the department to suspend or revoke the driving privileges of the person under the laws of this state.

(3) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this section. [1983 c.338 §352; 1987 c.272 §4; 1987 c.730 §16; 1989 c.171 §90; 1989 c.398 §1; 1989 c.636 §35; 1991 c.595 §1; 1991 c.702 §11; 2005 c.649 §24; 2025 c.415 §14]

809.404 [2005 c.649 §13; 2007 c.122 §13; 2009 c.783 §9; repealed by 2013 c.237 §12]

809.405 [1989 c.715 §4; 1999 c.328 §7; repealed by 2001 c.176 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: Dyrdahl v. Dep't of Transp., 131 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dyrdahl v. Dep't of Transp., 131 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “Petitioner’s argument parallels the ruling of the circuit court regarding DMV’s discretion under ORS 809.400, and focuses on the small but important differences between Arizona’s and Oregon’s diversion programs.”

Wilcox v. Motor Vehs. Div., 750 P.2d 181 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “420(2) (a) 4 and ORS 809.400. 5 Petitioner seeks review of that order.”

State v. Early, 43 P.3d 439 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). ““(e) A suspension of a commercial driver license under ORS 809.400(3)(b) * * * » 3 The legislature could have, but was not required to, set those offenses out in separate provisions and/or could have denominated them as offenses of specified degrees, such as DWSR in the first…”

MIMS v. Motor Vehs. Div., 751 P.2d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “PER CURIAM Petitioner challenges the suspension of his driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.400 and ORS 813.400, based on a California conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants, on the ground that the notice of the California conviction did not contain a…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.400(1) — 2 cases

Dyrdahl v. Dep't of Transp., 131 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioner’s argument parallels the ruling of the circuit court regarding DMV’s discretion under ORS 809.400, and focuses on the small but important differences between Arizona’s and Oregon’s diversion programs.”

Wilcox v. Motor Vehs. Div., 750 P.2d 181 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “420(2) (a) 4 and ORS 809.400. 5 Petitioner seeks review of that order.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.400(3)(b) — 1 case

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.