Chapter 671

671.010

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Practice of architecture does not include making of contract for architectural services. Friedman v. Mt. Village, Inc., 55 Or App 1018, 640 P2d 1037 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Individual who prepared plans and specifications for classroom addition to school did not qualify for licensing exemption where plans were merely reviewed by engineer who then put engineer’s stamp on documents. Merrill v. Board of Architect Examiners, 300 Or 34, 706 P2d 556 (1985)

Under 2001 version of statute, “practice of architecture” includes preparation of building plans and designs that are never used in construction of building. Davis v. Board of Architect Examiners, 222 Or App 370, 193 P3d 1019 (2008)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Preparing plans for exempt structure as practice of architecture, (1979) Vol 40, p 69

671.020

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where Board of Architect Examiners made extensive findings of fact which were supported by substantial evidence, Board did not exceed authority by assessing civil penalty. Merrill v. Board of Architect Examiners, 71 Or App 636, 693 P2d 1317 (1984), aff’d on other grounds, 300 Or 34, 706 P2d 556 (1985)

Individual who prepared plans and specifications for classroom addition to school did not qualify for licensing exemption where plans were merely reviewed by engineer who then put engineer’s stamp on documents. Merrill v. Board of Architect Examiners, 300 Or 34, 706 P2d 556 (1985)

Prohibition against practice of architecture, as defined in 2001 version of ORS 671.010, includes preparation of building plans and designs that are never used in construction of building. Davis v. Board of Architect Examiners, 222 Or App 370, 193 P3d 1019 (2008)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Illegality of licensee approving plans prepared by one not an employe or licensed, (1972) Vol 35, p 1173; stamping plans and title page of specifications for exempt structures, (1979) Vol 40, p 69

671.030

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Illegality of licensee approving plans prepared by one not an employe or licensed, (1972) Vol 35, p 1173

671.041

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Permissible titles of relationship, (1976) Vol 37, p 1120

671.220

NOTES OF DECISIONS

California architects who were not licensed to practice in Oregon could not maintain an action in Oregon courts to recover damages for the conversion of plans and designs. Central Coast Const. v. Nels Laundry, 275 Or 573, 551 P2d 1294 (1976)

671.510 to 671.710

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 16 WLR 511 (1979)

671.520

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Plaintiff, who had contract with defendant landscape contractor to move and place topsoil as part of shopping mall landscaping project, was not landscape contractor under this section. Valley Excavating, Inc. v. Clark, 107 Or App 42, 810 P2d 869 (1991)

Plaintiff, who was handyman by trade, did not pursue landscaping work on any regular ongoing basis, and worked only at defendant’s request and under defendant’s control and supervision on activities which did not require specialized art, ability, experience, knowledge, science or skill, was not engaged in business of landscape contracting under this section. Rhorer v. Vickers, 107 Or App 178, 810 P2d 1341 (1991)

Seller of property does not “offer” landscape contractor services by virtue of property landscaping completed prior to sale. J. L. Ward Co. v. Landscape Contractors Board, 141 Or App 181, 916 P2d 887 (1996), modified 142 Or App 438, 921 P2d 416 (1996)

671.625

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Legislature intended landscaping business to make contracts in writing and landscaper may not, in absence of written contract, obtain quantum meruit recovery for services. Jehnings v. Allison, 93 Or App 414, 762 P2d 1037 (1988)

671.990

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Illegality of licensee approving plans prepared by one not an employe or licensed, (1972) Vol 35, p 1173