Chapter 366
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Use and distribution of State Highway Fund, (1975) Vol 37, p 599
366.112
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Members of State Advisory Committee on Bicycles who cease to fulfill requirements, (1980) Vol 40, p 353
366.205
NOTES OF DECISIONS
The authority of the State of Oregon without reference to protection of the public’s recreation lands and rights in land along the ocean shores is vested exclusively in the Department of Transportation. State ex rel Johnson v. Bauman, 7 Or App 479, 492 P2d 284 (1971)
Grant of general supervision and control under this section and exclusive authority over adopted and designated highway system under ORS 366.290 are indicative of legislative intent to impose duty upon state to make highway travel reasonably safe to general public; “improvement, maintenance, repair and operation” are mandated functions and state has no discretion to engage in “non-decisions” regarding duties delineated by these mandated functions. Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 739 P2d 564 (1987)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: City authority to construct speed bumps to control vehicle speed, (1975) Vol 37, p 653
366.290
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Exclusive authority over adopted and designated highway system under this section and grant of general supervision and control under ORS 366.205 are indicative of legislative intent to impose duty upon state to make highway travel reasonably safe to general public; “improvement, maintenance, repair and operation” are mandated functions and state has no discretion to engage in “non-decisions” regarding duties delineated by these mandated functions. Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 739 P2d 564 (1987)
Closing portion of state road does not “eliminate” road from state highway system. Klamath County v. Department of Transportation, 201 Or App 10, 116 P3d 924 (2005)
366.300
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where this section provides procedure for abandonment of sections of state highway eliminated upon relocation or realignment of highway, that procedure is the exclusive means by which a state highway may be abandoned. Poe v. Department of Transportation, 42 Or App 493, 600 P2d 300 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Disposition of highway right-of-way no longer needed for highway purposes, (1977) Vol 38, p 890
366.320
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Proposed use of property acquired by condemnation need not be lawful use at time of acquisition. Oregon Department of Transportation v. Schrock Farms, 140 Or App 140, 914 P2d 1116 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
366.340
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Proposed use of property acquired by condemnation need not be lawful use at time of acquisition. Oregon Department of Transportation v. Schrock Farms, 140 Or App 140, 914 P2d 1116 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
366.395
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where Department of Transportation determines that department property is no longer needed, required or useful for department purposes, department may obtain equal or superior value in exchange for property. Oregon Trucking Assns. v. Dept. of Transportation, 364 Or 210, 432 P3d 1080 (2019)
“Conserve” includes increasing highway funds. Oregon Trucking Assns. v. Dept. of Transportation, 364 Or 210, 432 P3d 1080 (2019)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Discretion in manner of selling property by the Department of Transportation, (1975) Vol 37, p 773; disposition of highway right-of-way no longer needed for highway purposes, (1977) Vol 38, p 890; exchange of state right-of-way for city owned right-of-way, (1977) Vol 38, p 1421; transfer of certain properties by Department of Transportation to Port of Morrow, (1978) Vol 38, p 1731
366.514
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Expenditure of one percent minimum amount on footpath and bicycle trail activities in general does not satisfy requirement that specific expenditures be made where roadways are constructed or reconstructed. Bicycle Transportation Alliance v. City of Portland, 133 Or App 422, 891 P2d 692 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Using one-half of division appropriation in budgeting for footpaths and bicycle trails, (1972) Vol 36, p 1; method of determining amount of money to be spent by Highway Division on footpaths and bicycle trails, (1974) Vol 37, p 235; consideration of miscellaneous revenue sources in computing 1% monies from Highway Fund, (1977) Vol 38, p 1493; bicycle parking facilities, educational programs, trail maps, route signs and Advisory Commission compensation expenses as charges against bicycle and footpath fund, (1978) Vol 39, p 400; use of money set aside for footpaths and bicycle trails for construction of bicycle-pedestrian bridge over river, (1981) Vol 41, p 545
366.525 to 366.540
See annotations under ORS 366.762 to 366.768.
366.525
See annotations under ORS 366.762.
366.535
See annotations under ORS 366.766.
366.568
(formerly 366.735)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Use and distribution of State Highway Fund, (1975) Vol 37, p 599
366.735
See annotations under ORS 366.568.
366.762 to 366.768
(formerly 366.525 to 366.540)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Crediting interest earned from investment of unsegregated money held by county treasurer, (1971) Vol 35, p 1020; constitutionality of Highway Fund advance to Multnomah County to acquire golf course, (1975) Vol 37, p 460
366.762
(formerly 366.525)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Basis for figuring funds allocated to footpaths and bicycle trails, (1972) Vol 36, p 1
366.766
(formerly 366.535)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution on a monthly basis, (1976) Vol 37, p 1518
366.785 to 366.820
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution of state moneys when all land within city is owned by private party, (1983) Vol 44, p 20; Use of highway funds for maintenance or policing of private roads within city, (1983) Vol 44, p 20
366.800
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Basis for figuring funds allocated to footpaths and bicycle trails, (1972) Vol 36, p 1.; Distribution of Highway Fund money to cities taking into account population adjustment of corrected certificate of population, (1983) Vol 44, p 52
366.810
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution on a monthly basis, (1976) Vol 37, p 1518