ORS 40.065¹
Rule 201(b). Kinds of facts

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either:

(1) Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or

(2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. [1981 c.892 §8]

(Rule 201(b))

See also annota­tions under ORS 41.410 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Private docu­ments that party to pro­ceed­ing submits into prehearing court or administrative record are not source “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be ques­tioned.” Arlington Educa­tion Associa­tion v. Arlington School District No. 3, 177 Or App 658, 34 P3d 1197 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Completed Cita­tions (For ORS 41.410 In Permanent Edi­tion)

Beistel v. Pub. Employes Rela­tions Bd., 6 Or App 115, 486 P2d 1305 (1971)

§§ 40.060 (Rule 201(a). Scope) to 40.085 (Rule 201(g). Instructing the jury)

(Rule 201)

Notes of Decisions

That traveling by car to and from a tavern is commonplace and car accidents resulting from drinking are frequent are not indisputable facts that qualify for judicial notice under OEC 201. Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985)

Where court takes judicial notice of facts in determining what law is or should be, code limita­tions on judicial notice of facts do not apply. State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995)

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information