16 Oregon opinions name it 4 courts 2007–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pendleton School District 16R v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The substituted sentence is as follows: “However, the court also ruled that the provision in Article VIII, section 8, contemplating a report from the legislature explaining its failure to fund education at the required level (when and if that was the case) prevented the court from enjoining the legislature to provide the constitutionally mandated level of funding.” See Pendleton I, 345 Or at 611 (declaration or injunction of kind sought by petitioners “would not be consistent with the reporting requirement”). 2009Id. at 607-OS. | 1 | 2 |
Routledge v. Dept. of Rev.green1 sentence2025Treas Reg § 1.6041-3(p)(1)); see also Routledge v. Dept. of Rev., 24 OTR 103 , 106 n6 (2020) (noting that regulation enacted pursuant to IRC section 6041(a) “excludes most payments to corporations” from information reporting). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Rickettsgreen1 sentence2022See Huber, 235 Or at 243 (discussing former OAR 851-045-0020(3) (Jan 3, 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coxgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 , 182 P3d 250 (2008) (holding that the obligation to report a “change of residence” was triggered upon leaving former residence). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 323 , 182 P3d 250 (2008) (holding that the obligation to report a “change of residence” was triggered upon leaving former residence). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bajakajiangreen2 sentences2012The government sought the forfeiture pursuant to a statute, 18 USC section 982 (a)(1), which provided that, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of violating the reporting requirement, a court “shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense.” Bajakajian, 524 US at 325 . 2012After the respondent pleaded guilty to violating the reporting requirement, the district court concluded that the respondent’s $357,144 was subject to forfeiture under section 982(a)(1) because it was “involved in” the reporting violation, but that forfeiture of the full amount would violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it would be “grossly disproportionate to the offense in question.” Id. at 326 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.green2 sentences2011The state argues, essentially, that an address verification requirement was nonetheless implied because the purpose of the statute — to track sex offenders— “would be compromised if sex offenders were allowed to provide addresses that could not be verified for purposes of reporting a change of address.” That may make sense, as the state suggests; however, it is not our function in construing statutes to “insert what has been omitted.” ORS 174.010; see also Faverty v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 133 Or App 514, 533 , 892 P2d 703 (1995), rev dismissed, 326 Or 530 (1998) (“Inchoate intentions are not 2011The state argues, essentially, that an address verification requirement was nonetheless implied because the purpose of the statute — to track sex offenders— “would be compromised if sex offenders were allowed to provide addresses that could not be verified for purposes of reporting a change of address.” That may make sense, as the state suggests; however, it is not our function in construing statutes to “insert what has been omitted.” ORS 174.010; see also Faverty v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 133 Or App 514, 533 , 892 P2d 703 (1995), rev dismissed, 326 Or 530 (1998) (“Inchoate intentions are not | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ribas
green
2 sentences2026That fail- ure amounts to criminal conduct after the 10-day reporting period has elapsed.” 374 Or at 770 n 11. 2026That fail- ure amounts to criminal conduct after the 10-day reporting period has elapsed.” 374 Or at 770 n 11. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Colton
green
2 sentences2007The issue, as material here, was whether the reporting requirement in the statutory definition of “phantom vehicle” was enforceable against the insured, who did not learn, until it was too late, that he had an obligation to make a claim within specific deadlines. 3 The court determined that the claim reporting deadline was unenforceable against the claimant, even though, as the court acknowledged, the statute in question made the notice of the claim “a condition precedent to any liability on the part of the insurer.” Id. at 219 . 2007The issue, as material here, was whether the reporting requirement in the statutory definition of "phantom vehicle" was enforceable against the insured, who did not learn, until it was too late, that he had an obligation to make a claim within specific deadlines. [3] The court determined that the claim reporting deadline was unenforceable against the claimant, even though, as the court acknowledged, the statute in question made the notice of the claim "a condition precedent to any liability on the part of the insurer." Id. at 219 , 504 P.2d 1041 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Ribas
neutral
1 sentence2024State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 651 , 635 P3d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982). 2 ORS 163A.040 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person who is required to report as a sex offender * * * and who has knowledge of the reporting requirement commits the crime of failure to report as a sex offender if the person: * * * “(d) Fails to report following a change of residence[.]” 3 ORS 163A.015(4)(a)(B) provides, in relevant part: “(4)(a) A person described in subsection (2) of this section shall report, in person, to the Department of State Police, a city police department or a county sheriff’s | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Tidyman
green
1 sentence2024State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 651 , 635 P3d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982). 2 ORS 163A.040 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person who is required to report as a sex offender * * * and who has knowledge of the reporting requirement commits the crime of failure to report as a sex offender if the person: * * * “(d) Fails to report following a change of residence[.]” 3 ORS 163A.015(4)(a)(B) provides, in relevant part: “(4)(a) A person described in subsection (2) of this section shall report, in person, to the Department of State Police, a city police department or a county sheriff’s | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. McLarrin
neutral
2 sentences2024State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 651 , 635 P3d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982). 2 ORS 163A.040 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person who is required to report as a sex offender * * * and who has knowledge of the reporting requirement commits the crime of failure to report as a sex offender if the person: * * * “(d) Fails to report following a change of residence[.]” 3 ORS 163A.015(4)(a)(B) provides, in relevant part: “(4)(a) A person described in subsection (2) of this section shall report, in person, to the Department of State Police, a city police department or a county sheriff’s 2024State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 651 , 635 P3d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982). 2 ORS 163A.040 provides, in relevant part: “(1) A person who is required to report as a sex offender * * * and who has knowledge of the reporting requirement commits the crime of failure to report as a sex offender if the person: * * * “(d) Fails to report following a change of residence[.]” 3 ORS 163A.015(4)(a)(B) provides, in relevant part: “(4)(a) A person described in subsection (2) of this section shall report, in person, to the Department of State Police, a city police department or a county sheriff’s | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hardges
green
1 sentence2022Hardges, 294 Or App at 452 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Alley
neutral
1 sentence2021In particular, defendant asserts that the trial court’s determination that the violation of the same condition in separate cases allows for the imposition of consecutive sentences conflicts with Brand, pointing to our statement there rejecting the state’s argument “ ‘that the limitation in OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) applies only to revocation sanctions entered in the same case that are based on crimes that the defendant committed Cite as 314 Or App 467 (2021) 469 during a single criminal episode’ ” as contrary to the plain text of OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stokes
green
2 sentences2021Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sanctions, rea- soning that OAR 213-012-0040(2), State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355, 359 , 891 P2d 13 (1995), and State v. Brand, 257 Or App 647 , 307 P3d 525 (2013), precluded the imposition of consecutive sanctions because the court found only a sin- gle violation of the reporting requirement. 2021Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sanctions, rea- soning that OAR 213-012-0040(2), State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355, 359 , 891 P2d 13 (1995), and State v. Brand, 257 Or App 647 , 307 P3d 525 (2013), precluded the imposition of consecutive sanctions because the court found only a sin- gle violation of the reporting requirement. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Brand
green
2 sentences2021Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sanctions, rea- soning that OAR 213-012-0040(2), State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355, 359 , 891 P2d 13 (1995), and State v. Brand, 257 Or App 647 , 307 P3d 525 (2013), precluded the imposition of consecutive sanctions because the court found only a sin- gle violation of the reporting requirement. 2021Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sanctions, rea- soning that OAR 213-012-0040(2), State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355, 359 , 891 P2d 13 (1995), and State v. Brand, 257 Or App 647 , 307 P3d 525 (2013), precluded the imposition of consecutive sanctions because the court found only a sin- gle violation of the reporting requirement. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hiner
green
2 sentences2016PER CURIAM In this appeal, defendant challenges two of his convictions for failure to register as a sex offender, former ORS 181.812 (2013), renumbered as ORS 163A.040 (2015): the single count in Case Number 13CR2380FE; and Count 2 in Case Number 14CR0522FE. 1 Former ORS 181.812(l)(d) (2013) requires that, when a person required to report as a sex offender “[m]oves to a new residence,” that person must “report the move and the person’s new address.” The basis for defendant’s appeal is that the facts of his case are indistinguishable from the facts in State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447, 452 , 345 P 2016PER CURIAM In this appeal, defendant challenges two of his convictions for failure to register as a sex offender, former ORS 181.812 (2013), renumbered as ORS 163A.040 (2015): the single count in Case Number 13CR2380FE; and Count 2 in Case Number 14CR0522FE. 1 Former ORS 181.812(l)(d) (2013) requires that, when a person required to report as a sex offender “[m]oves to a new residence,” that person must “report the move and the person’s new address.” The basis for defendant’s appeal is that the facts of his case are indistinguishable from the facts in State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447, 452 , 345 P | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. MacNab
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 336 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Depeche
neutral
2 sentences2011Id. at 154 . 2011In defendant’s view, because it “cannot readily be determined” within which county the offense was committed, under ORS 131.325, see 242 Or App at 164 -65 n 10, venue is proper only in the county in which he resided, that is, Multnomah County. 7 The state, on the other hand, contends that an essential element of the offense is proof that a defendant failed to report; thus, “[b]ecause defendant failed to report as a sex offender while in Washington County,” the record is sufficient to establish venue in that county. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.