2015 ORS 40.090¹
Rule 202. Law that is judicially noticed

Law judicially noticed is defined as:

(1) The decisional, constitutional and public statutory law of Oregon, the United States, any federally recognized American Indian tribal government and any state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) Public and private official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of this state, the United States, any federally recognized American Indian tribal government and any other state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States.

(3) Rules of professional conduct for members of the Oregon State Bar.

(4) Regulations, ordinances and similar legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States, any federally recognized American Indian tribal government or any state, territory or possession of the United States.

(5) Rules of court of any court of this state or any court of record of the United States, of any federally recognized American Indian tribal government or of any state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States.

(6) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations.

(7) An ordinance, comprehensive plan or enactment of any county or incorporated city in this state, or a right derived therefrom. As used in this subsection, "comprehensive plan" has the meaning given that term by ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325). [1981 c.892 §13; 2007 c.63 §1]

BURDEN OF PERSUASION; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS

(Rule 202)

See also annota­tions under ORS 41.410, 41.420, 41.430, 41.440, 41.450, 41.460 and 41.470 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Govern­mental safety regula­tions adopted under Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act, unlike safety standards or usages of private trades or nongovern­mental entities, are law to be judicially noticed. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)

Court could not take judicial notice of legislative history of local land-use ordinance. Byrnes v. City of Hillsboro, 104 Or App 95, 798 P2d 1119 (1990)

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 (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.