Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.670

Allowance of demurrer

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      135.670 Allowance of demurrer. (1) 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 unless the court, being of the opinion that the objection on which the demurrer is allowed may be avoided in a new accusatory instrument, allows the case to be resubmitted or refiled.

      (2) If the court allows the case to be resubmitted or refiled, it must be resubmitted or refiled by the state within 30 days from the date on which the court enters the order. If the case is not resubmitted or refiled within that time, the defendant shall be discharged from custody or the release agreement discharged or the security deposit returned as provided in ORS 135.680. [Amended by 1973 c.836 §186]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: Antoine v. Taylor
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Antoine v. Taylor (2021) or · cites it 2× “als read Hale as so holding, the Court of Appeals expressed some skepticism that that holding was correct, noting that Hale “did not explain why, under the statutory scheme concerning demurrers, if a defen- dant establishes that an indictment fails to provide sufficient notice,…”
State v. Warren (2018) or “" ORS 135.670(1) provides that, if the court allows the demurrer, the judgment is final, unless the court authorizes the case to be resubmitted or refiled, for the possible issuance of a new accusatory instrument.”
State v. Dallavis (2018) orctapp · cites it 4× “660 and ORS 135.670(1) required the trial court to dismiss the entire indictment, instead of only allowing defendant's demurrer on Count 4.”
State v. Miller (1969) or · cites it 5× “He argues that when the trial court sustained the demurrer, it was obligated by ORS 135.670 [2] and 135.680 [3] *1020 to resubmit the matter to the grand jury or to dismiss the proceeding with prejudice.”
State v. Marks (2017) orctapp “ORS 135.670(1) (emphasis added). If, on the other hand, the demurrer is disallowed, ORS 135.”
State v. Levitt (2025) orctapp · cites it 14× “On appeal, defendant contends that, although the trial court granted the state leave to amend the indictment, instead of requiring it to the return to the grand jury, once the trial court allowed the demurrer, ORS 135.670 dictates that the case was effectively dismissed.”
State v. Antoine (2015) orctapp “The court did not explain why, under the statutory scheme concerning demurrers, if a defendant establishes that an indictment fails to provide sufficient notice, the defendant is not entitled to allowance and to the remedy prescribed by the legislature through ORS 135.670:…”
State v. Chang Hwan Cho (1983) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 135.670 provides in part: “(1) 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 unless the court, being of the opinion that the objection on which the demurrer is allowed may be…”
State v. Costello (1992) orctapp · cites it 2× “660; 1 ORS 135.670. 2 State v. Woodson, 113 Or App 688 , 833 P2d 1339 (1992); State v.”
State v. Moline (1990) orctapp · cites it 12× “The issue is whether it was error to deny his motion to dismiss on the ground that this action is barred, because the indictment was not refiled in conformance with ORS 135.670. We affirm. In December, 1987, defendant was charged with failing to perform the duties of a driver to…”
State v. House (1971) or “In addition, a bill of particulars is also easily amended, but any change in the charging allegations of an indictment must be resubmitted to the grand jury, ORS 135.670: ORS 135.690. For these reasons, we believe that to adopt a test for determining the sufficiency of an…”
State v. Hall (1991) orctapp “640; ORS 135.670. Generally, the objection is waived if the defendant does not demur.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.670(1) — 11 cases
State v. Warren (2018) or “" ORS 135.670(1) provides that, if the court allows the demurrer, the judgment is final, unless the court authorizes the case to be resubmitted or refiled, for the possible issuance of a new accusatory instrument.”
State v. Dallavis (2018) orctapp “660 and ORS 135.670(1) required the trial court to dismiss the entire indictment, instead of only allowing defendant's demurrer on Count 4.”
State v. Marks (2017) orctapp “ORS 135.670(1) (emphasis added). If, on the other hand, the demurrer is disallowed, ORS 135.”
State v. South (1977) orctapp
State v. Chang Hwan Cho (1983) orctapp “ORS 135.670 provides in part: “(1) 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 unless the court, being of the opinion that the objection on which the demurrer is allowed may be…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.670(2) — 3 cases
State v. Tally (2002) orctapp
State v. Moline (1990) orctapp “The issue is whether it was error to deny his motion to dismiss on the ground that this action is barred, because the indictment was not refiled in conformance with ORS 135.670. We affirm. In December, 1987, defendant was charged with failing to perform the duties of a driver to…”
State v. Harrison (1993) orctapp
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.