reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
OR Rev Stat § 40.262 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.262 - Rule 507. Counselor-client privilege.

A professional counselor or a marriage and family therapist licensed by the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists under ORS 675.715 shall not be examined in a civil or criminal court proceeding as to any communication given the counselor or therapist by a client in the course of a noninvestigatory professional activity when such communication was given to enable the counselor or the therapist to aid the client, except: (1) When the client or those persons legally responsible for the affairs of the client give consent to the disclosure. If both parties to a marriage have obtained marital and family therapy by a licensed marital and family therapist or a licensed counselor, the therapist or counselor shall not be competent to testify in a domestic relations action other than child custody action concerning information acquired in the course of the therapeutic relationship unless both parties consent; (2) When the client initiates legal action or makes a complaint against the licensed professional counselor or licensed marriage and family therapist to the board; (3) When the communication reveals the intent to commit a crime or harmful act; or (4) When the communication reveals that a minor is or is suspected to be the victim of crime, abuse or neglect. [1989 c.721 §20] Note: 40.262 was added to and made a part of 40.010 to 40.585 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
OR Rev Stat § 40.265 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.265 - Rule 508a. Stenographer-employer privilege.

A stenographer shall not, without the consent of the stenographer’s employer, be examined as to any communication or dictation made by the employer to the stenographer in the course of professional employment. [1981 c.892 §36]
OR Rev Stat § 40.270 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.270 - Rule 509. Public officer privilege.

A public officer shall not be examined as to public records determined to be exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.338, 192.345 and 192.355. [1981 c.892 §37]
OR Rev Stat § 40.272 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.272 - Rule 509-1. Sign language interpreter privilege.

(1) As used in this section: (a) "Person with a disability" means a person who cannot readily understand or communicate the spoken English language, or cannot understand proceedings in which the person is involved, because of deafness or because of a physical hearing impairment or cannot communicate in the proceedings because of a physical speaking impairment. (b) "Sign language interpreter" or "interpreter" means a person who translates conversations or other communications for a person with a disability or translates the statements of a person with a disability. (2) A person with a disability has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent a sign language interpreter from disclosing any communications to which the person with a disability was a party that were made while the interpreter was providing interpretation services for the person with a disability. The privilege created by this section extends only to those communications between a person with a disability and another, and translated by the interpreter, that would otherwise be privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295. [1993 c.179 §2; 2007 c.70 §11] Note: 40.272 was added to and made a part of 40.225 to 40.295 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
OR Rev Stat § 40.273 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.273 - Rule 509-2. Non-English-speaking person-interpreter privilege.

(1) As used in this section: (a) "Interpreter" means a person who translates conversations or other communications for a non-English-speaking person or translates the statements of a non-English-speaking person. (b) "Non-English-speaking person" means a person who, by reason of place of birth or culture, speaks a language other than English and does not speak English with adequate ability to communicate in the proceedings. (2) A non-English-speaking person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent an interpreter from disclosing any communications to which the non-English-speaking person was a party that were made while the interpreter was providing interpretation services for the non-English-speaking person. The privilege created by this section extends only to those communications between a non-English-speaking person and another, and translated by the interpreter, that would otherwise be privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295. [1993 c.179 §3] Note: 40.273 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 40 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
OR Rev Stat § 40.280 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.280 - Rule 511. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.

A person upon whom ORS 40.225 to 40.295 confer a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or the person’s predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. This section does not apply if the disclosure is itself a privileged communication. Voluntary disclosure does not occur with the mere commencement of litigation or, in the case of a deposition taken for the purpose of perpetuating testimony, until the offering of the deposition as evidence. Voluntary disclosure does not occur when representatives of the news media are allowed to attend executive sessions of the governing body of a public body as provided in ORS 192.660 (4), or when representatives of the news media disclose information after the governing body has prohibited disclosure of the information under ORS 192.660 (4). Voluntary disclosure does not occur when a public body, as defined in ORS 192.311, discloses information or records in response to a written request for public records made under ORS 192.311 to 192.478. Voluntary disclosure does occur, as to psychotherapists in the case of a mental or emotional condition and physicians in the case of a physical condition upon the holder’s offering of any person as a witness who testifies as to the condition. [1981 c.892 §39; 2003 c.259 §1; 2017 c.456 §9]
OR Rev Stat § 40.285 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.285 - Rule 512. Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.

Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if the disclosure was: (1) Compelled erroneously; or (2) Made without opportunity to claim the privilege. [1981 c.892 §40]
OR Rev Stat § 40.290 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.290 - Rule 513. Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege.

(1) The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn from a claim of privilege. (2) In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury. (3) Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom. [1981 c.892 §41]
OR Rev Stat § 40.310 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.310 - Rule 601. General rule of competency.

Except as provided in ORS 40.310 to 40.335, any person who, having organs of sense can perceive, and perceiving can make known the perception to others, may be a witness. [1981 c.892 §43]
OR Rev Stat § 40.315 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.315 - Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge.

Subject to the provisions of ORS 40.415, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. [1981 c.892 §44]
OR Rev Stat § 40.320 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.320 - Rule 603. Oath or affirmation.

(1) Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the conscience of the witness and impress the mind of the witness with the duty to do so. (2) An oath may be administered as follows: The person who swears holds up one hand while the person administering the oath asks: "Under penalty of perjury, do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the issue (or matter) now pending between _____ and _____ shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" If the oath is administered to any other than a witness, the same form and manner may be used. The person swearing must answer in an affirmative manner. (3) An affirmation may be administered as follows: The person who affirms holds up one hand while the person administering the affirmation asks: "Under penalty of perjury, do you promise that the evidence you shall give in the issue (or matter) now pending between _____ and _____ shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" If the affirmation is administered to any other than a witness, the same form and manner may be used. The person affirming must answer in an affirmative manner. [1981 c.892 §45]
OR Rev Stat § 40.325 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.325 - Rule 604. Interpreters.

Except as provided in ORS 45.275 (7), an interpreter is subject to the provisions of the Oregon Evidence Code relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that the interpreter will make a true and impartial interpretation of the proceedings in an understandable manner using the interpreter’s best skills and judgment in accordance with the standards and ethics of the interpreter profession. [1981 c.892 §47; 1981 s.s. c.3 §138; 1989 c.224 §7; 1991 c.750 §7; 2001 c.242 §4; 2005 c.385 §3; 2015 c.155 §5]
OR Rev Stat § 40.330 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.330 - Rule 605. Competency of judge as witness.

The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the point. [1981 c.892 §48]
OR Rev Stat § 40.335 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.335 - Rule 606. Competency of juror as witness.

A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the member has been sworn to sit as a juror. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury. [1981 c.892 §49]
OR Rev Stat § 40.345 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.345 - Rule 607. Who may impeach.

The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. [1981 c.892 §51]
OR Rev Stat § 40.350 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.350 - Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness.

(1) The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but: (a) The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; and (b) Evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. (2) Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the credibility of the witness, other than conviction of crime as provided in ORS 40.355, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Further, such specific instances of conduct may not, even if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness. [1981 c.892 §52]
OR Rev Stat § 40.360 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.360 - Rule 609-1. Impeachment for bias or interest.

(1) The credibility of a witness may be attacked by evidence that the witness engaged in conduct or made statements showing bias or interest. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the statement shall be shown or disclosed to the opposing party. (2) If a witness fully admits the facts claimed to show the bias or interest of the witness, additional evidence of that bias or interest shall not be admitted. If the witness denies or does not fully admit the facts claimed to show bias or interest, the party attacking the credibility of the witness may then offer evidence to prove those facts. (3) Evidence to support or rehabilitate a witness whose credibility has been attacked by evidence of bias or interest shall be limited to evidence showing a lack of bias or interest. [1981 c.892 §54; 1999 c.100 §1]
OR Rev Stat § 40.365 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.365 - Rule 610. Religious beliefs or opinions.

Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the credibility of the witness is impaired or enhanced. [1981 c.892 §54a]
OR Rev Stat § 40.370 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.370 - Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.

(1) The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid needless consumption of time and protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (2) Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. (3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. [1981 c.892 §54b]
OR Rev Stat § 40.375 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.375 - Rule 612. Writing used to refresh memory.

If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either while testifying or before testifying if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce into evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this section, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial. [1981 c.892 §55]
OR Rev Stat § 40.380 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.380 - Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses.

(1) In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel. (2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in ORS 40.450. [1981 c.892 §55a; 1983 c.433 §2; 1983 c.740 §5]
OR Rev Stat § 40.385 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.385 - Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses.

At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded until the time of final argument, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of: (1) A party who is a natural person; (2) An officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney; (3) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause; or (4) The victim in a criminal case. [1981 c.892 §56; 1987 c.2 §5; 2003 c.14 §20]
OR Rev Stat § 40.405 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.405 - Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are: (1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of testimony of the witness or the determination of a fact in issue. [1981 c.892 §57]
OR Rev Stat § 40.410 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.410 - Rule 702. Testimony by experts.

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [1981 c.892 §58]
OR Rev Stat § 40.415 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.415 - Rule 703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts.

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. [1981 c.892 §59]
OR Rev Stat § 40.420 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.420 - Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue.

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [1981 c.892 §60]
OR Rev Stat § 40.425 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.425 - Rule 705. Disclosure of fact or data underlying expert opinion.

An expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. [1981 c.892 §61]
OR Rev Stat § 40.430 (2021)
2021 Oregon Revised Statutes|Volume : 01 - Courts, Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure|Chapter 040 - Evidence Code|Section 40.430 - Rule 706. Impeachment of expert witness by learned treatise.

Upon cross-examination, an expert witness may be questioned concerning statements contained in a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, medicine or other science or art if the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is established as a reliable authority. A treatise, periodical or pamphlet may be established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness, by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. Statements contained in a treatise, periodical or pamphlet established as a reliable authority may be used for purposes of impeachment but may not be introduced as substantive evidence. [1999 c.85 §2]