810.250 Use of
traffic control device placement or legibility as evidence. (1) A person shall not be
convicted of violating a provision of the vehicle code for which an official
traffic control device is required if the device is not in proper position and
legible to a reasonably observant person at the time and place of the alleged
violation.
(2) Whenever a
particular section of the vehicle code does not state that traffic control
devices are required, the section is effective even though no devices are
erected or in place.
(3) When a
traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the
requirements of the traffic regulations or other laws of this state, the device
is presumed to have been placed by an official act or at the direction of
lawful authority unless the contrary is established by competent evidence.
(4) A traffic
control device placed under the vehicle code or other laws or regulations of
this state and purporting to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to
that device is presumed to comply with the requirements of the vehicle code
unless the contrary is established by competent evidence. [1983 c.338 §167]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 2002–2006 · leading case:
State v. Boly, 149 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Boly, 149 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 810.250(1), however, provides that “A person shall not be convicted of violating a provision of the vehicle code for which an official traffic control device is required if the device is not in proper position and legible to a reasonably observant person at the time and…”
State v. Potter, 57 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “ORS 810.250(3) provides: “When a traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the traffic *87 regulations or other laws of this state, the device is presumed to have been placed by an official act or at the direction of lawful…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.250(1) — 1 case
State v. Boly, 149 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“” ORS 810.250(1), however, provides that “A person shall not be convicted of violating a provision of the vehicle code for which an official traffic control device is required if the device is not in proper position and legible to a reasonably observant person at the time and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.250(3) — 1 case
State v. Potter, 57 P.3d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 810.250(3) provides: “When a traffic control device is placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of the traffic *87 regulations or other laws of this state, the device is presumed to have been placed by an official act or at the direction of lawful…”
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.