Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.660 (2026)

Judgment on demurrer; entry in register

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.660 Judgment on demurrer; entry in register. Upon considering the demurrer, the court shall give judgment, either allowing or disallowing it, and an entry to that effect shall be made in the register. [Amended by 1985 c.540 §33]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982). · cites it 10× “Since the Deady Code of 1864, the statutes have required that upon considering a demurrer in a criminal case, "the court shall give judgment, either allowing or disallowing it, and an entry to that effect shall be made in the journal.”
State v. Warren, 430 P.3d 1036 (Or. 2018). · cites it 2× “See ORS 135.660 ("Upon considering the demurrer, the court shall give judgment, either allowing or disallowing it, and an entry to that effect shall be made in the register.”
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “” In Robertson , the court considered the scope of that provision and, particularly, whether it encompassed “ ‘orders’ sustaining demurrers whether or not they are identified as judgments, as prescribed in ORS 135.660.” 2 293 Or at 407 . The court canvassed the evolution of the…”
State v. Dallavis, 432 P.3d 282 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" Defendant does not contest the trial court's conclusion that Counts 1, 2, and 3 were properly joined as part of the same act or transaction, but he contends that ORS 135.660 and ORS 135.670(1) required the trial court to dismiss the entire indictment, instead of only allowing…”
State v. Marks, 400 P.3d 951 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” ORS 135.660. “If the demurrer is allowed, the judgment is final upon the accusatory instrument demurred to and is a bar to another action for the same crime” subject to the court allowing the case to be resubmitted to the grand jury or *788 refiled by the state.”
State v. Hendrix, 813 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “On its face, the Intimidation Law creates criminal liability when unlawful motive plays any role in the proscribed conduct.”
State v. Costello, 837 P.2d 552 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 135.660; 1 ORS 135.670. 2 State v. Woodson, 113 Or App 688 , 833 P2d 1339 (1992); State v.”
State v. Levitt, 345 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “That is, in the state’s view, the court may allow the state to cure any deficiency—when it is one of form, not substance—by amendment rather than resubmitting the case to the grand jury.”
State v. Carter, 451 P.3d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “We explained: “ORS 135.660 provides, ‘[u]pon considering the demur- rer, the court shall give judgment, either allowing or dis- allowing it, and an entry to that effect shall be made in the register.”
State v. Porter, 768 P.2d 940 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “” The state appeals from the judgment on the demurrer, pursuant to ORS 135.660. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Levitt, 345 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “That is, in the state’s view, the court may allow the state to cure any deficiency—when it is one of form, not substance—by amendment rather than resubmitting the case to the grand jury.”
State v. Harrison, 870 P.2d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “The corrected quotation from Robertson, together with its context, reads: “[B]ecause the purpose of the amendments was to broaden the state’s ability to appeal orders that invalidate accusatory instruments, the court may take jurisdiction of such appeals from ‘orders’ sustaining…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.660(1) — 1 case
State v. Wright, 999 P.2d 1220 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “” In Robertson , the court considered the scope of that provision and, particularly, whether it encompassed “ ‘orders’ sustaining demurrers whether or not they are identified as judgments, as prescribed in ORS 135.660.” 2 293 Or at 407 . The court canvassed the evolution of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.