Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.750
Investigative demand by Attorney General

  • petition to modify


(1)

When it appears to the Attorney General that a person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice declared to be unlawful by ORS 646.725 (Prohibited acts) or 646.730 (Monopolies prohibited), the Attorney General may execute in writing and cause to be served an investigative demand upon any person who is believed to have documentary material or information relevant to the alleged or suspected violation. The investigative demand shall require such person to produce relevant documentary material for examination and copying or reproduction, to answer in writing written interrogatories, to give oral testimony concerning documentary material or information, or to furnish any combination of such material, answers or testimony under penalty of perjury, at such reasonable time and place as may be stated in the investigative demand.

(2)

At any time before the return day specified in the investigative demand, or within 20 days after the demand has been served whichever time is shorter, a petition to extend the return date, or to modify or set aside the demand, stating good cause, may be filed in the appropriate court.

(3)

The investigative demand shall state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged antitrust violation under investigation and the provisions of law believed to be applicable thereto. [1975 c.255 §13; 1977 c.729 §1]
§§ 646.705 to 646.815

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Meetings between members of associations having PUC authority to transport logs, poles and piling and mills and other shippers to jointly agree on rate for transportation, (1981) Vol 41, p 444

Law Review Citations

55 OLR 537-551 (1976); 56 OLR 331 (1977)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunction should issue when a court finds a violation of the Act is a matter of discretion. State ex rel Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no affirmative duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making information about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021