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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109

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

      137.103 Definitions for ORS 137.101 to 137.109. As used in ORS 137.101 to 137.109:

      (1) “Criminal activities” means any offense with respect to which the defendant is convicted or any other criminal conduct admitted by the defendant.

      (2) “Economic damages”:

      (a) Has the meaning given that term in ORS 31.705, except that “economic damages” does not include future impairment of earning capacity; and

      (b) In cases involving criminal activities described in ORS 163.263, 163.264 or 163.266, includes the greater of:

      (A) The value to the defendant of the victim’s services as defined in ORS 163.261; or

      (B) The value of the victim’s services, as defined in ORS 163.261, computed using the minimum wage established under ORS 653.025 and the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).

      (3) “Restitution” means full, partial or nominal payment of economic damages to a victim. Restitution is independent of and may be awarded in addition to a compensatory fine awarded under ORS 137.101.

      (4) “Victim” means:

      (a) The person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic damages as a result of the offense.

      (b) Any person not described in paragraph (a) of this subsection whom the court determines has suffered economic damages as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.

      (c) The Criminal Injuries Compensation Account, if it has expended moneys on behalf of a victim described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

      (d) An insurance carrier, if it has expended moneys on behalf of a victim described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

      (e) Upon the death of a victim described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, the estate of the victim.

      (f) The estate, successor in interest, trust, trustee, successor trustee or beneficiary of a trust against which the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the estate, successor in interest, trust, trustee, successor trustee or beneficiary of a trust suffered economic damages as a result of the offense.

      (5) “Victim” does not include any coparticipant in the defendant’s criminal activities. [1977 c.371 §1; 1981 c.637 §1; 1983 c.488 §1; 1983 c.740 §16; 1987 c.905 §16; 2005 c.564 §1; 2005 c.642 §4; 2007 c.811 §5; 2015 c.9 §1; 2021 c.478 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 256 cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016). · cites it 10× “106 updated the nomenclature for damages, but at the same time preserved the historical inclusion of future impairment of earning capacity as an item of “general” rather than “special” damages and excluded it from the scope of the restitution statutes.”
State v. Dillon, 637 P.2d 602 (Or. 1981). · cites it 14× “Defendant refused an officer’s order to get out of his car. Instead, defendant backed his car into one of the police cars, damaging it.”
State v. Barkley, 846 P.2d 390 (Or. 1993). · cites it 15× ““ (2) Compensatory fines may be awarded in addition to restitution awarded under ORS 137.103 to 137.109. “(3) Nothing in this section limits or impairs the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal acts to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
State v. Mann, 540 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 15× “” By its terms, ORS 137.103 refers to restitution as opposed to awarding “costs.”
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “ORS 137.103 has been amended since the restitution hearing; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Lobue, 466 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “As an initial matter, we reject defendant’s conten- tion that his statement to Ellis that he had spray-painted the pickup could not be considered under ORS 137.103, because it was not an unequivocal admission with the formalities Cite as 304 Or App 13 (2020) 19 of a guilty plea.”
State v. Campbell, 438 P.3d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “22 in expenses arising from unrelated care, and the state accordingly subtracted that amount from the total restitution requested. During cross-examination, defendant suggested that the correct deduction was $ 967 but pursued the issue no further at the restitution hearing or on…”
State v. White, 439 P.3d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “The *449 applicable statutory definition of "victim" is found in ORS 137.103 : "(4) 'Victim' means: "(a) The person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic…”
State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 442 P.3d 1092 (Or. 2019). · cites it 4× “We therefore do not need to resolve several other arguments that defendant has made, including that S also could not have recovered any economic damages that she suffered in a civil action and that the collateral source rule does not apply to the determination of whether a…”
State v. Alonso, 393 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “See ORS 137.103 (providing statutory definitions for terms used in ORS 137.”
State v. McClelland, 372 P.3d 614 (Coos Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 3× “ORS 137.103(2). With one exception not relevant here, “ [e] conomic damages * * * [h] as the meaning given that term in ORS 31.”
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 14× “ORS 137.103(1). We interpret these statutes as requiring a causal relationship between the conduct for which the defendant is convicted and the damages which the victim suffers.”
Show all 256 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(1) — 52 cases
State v. Lobue, 466 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “As an initial matter, we reject defendant’s conten- tion that his statement to Ellis that he had spray-painted the pickup could not be considered under ORS 137.103, because it was not an unequivocal admission with the formalities Cite as 304 Or App 13 (2020) 19 of a guilty plea.”
State v. Thorpe, 175 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Kirkland, 342 P.3d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Armstrong, 605 P.2d 736 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Anderson, 833 P.2d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(2) — 107 cases
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016). “106 updated the nomenclature for damages, but at the same time preserved the historical inclusion of future impairment of earning capacity as an item of “general” rather than “special” damages and excluded it from the scope of the restitution statutes.”
State v. McClelland, 372 P.3d 614 (Coos Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “ORS 137.103(2). With one exception not relevant here, “ [e] conomic damages * * * [h] as the meaning given that term in ORS 31.”
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 137.103 has been amended since the restitution hearing; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Campbell, 438 P.3d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “22 in expenses arising from unrelated care, and the state accordingly subtracted that amount from the total restitution requested. During cross-examination, defendant suggested that the correct deduction was $ 967 but pursued the issue no further at the restitution hearing or on…”
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 137.103(1). We interpret these statutes as requiring a causal relationship between the conduct for which the defendant is convicted and the damages which the victim suffers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(2)(a) — 41 cases
State v. Aguirre-Rodriguez, 482 P.3d 62 (Or. 2021).
State v. Riverman, 513 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Fox, 521 P.3d 151 (Or. 2022).
State v. Campbell, 438 P.3d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “22 in expenses arising from unrelated care, and the state accordingly subtracted that amount from the total restitution requested. During cross-examination, defendant suggested that the correct deduction was $ 967 but pursued the issue no further at the restitution hearing or on…”
State v. Pumphrey, 338 P.3d 819 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(3) — 26 cases
State v. Ramos, 368 P.3d 446 (Or. 2016). “106 updated the nomenclature for damages, but at the same time preserved the historical inclusion of future impairment of earning capacity as an item of “general” rather than “special” damages and excluded it from the scope of the restitution statutes.”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 137.103 has been amended since the restitution hearing; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. J. M. E., 451 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4) — 45 cases
State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 442 P.3d 1092 (Or. 2019). “We therefore do not need to resolve several other arguments that defendant has made, including that S also could not have recovered any economic damages that she suffered in a civil action and that the collateral source rule does not apply to the determination of whether a…”
State v. Barkley, 846 P.2d 390 (Or. 1993). ““ (2) Compensatory fines may be awarded in addition to restitution awarded under ORS 137.103 to 137.109. “(3) Nothing in this section limits or impairs the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal acts to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
State v. Mann, 540 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” By its terms, ORS 137.103 refers to restitution as opposed to awarding “costs.”
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “ORS 137.103(1). We interpret these statutes as requiring a causal relationship between the conduct for which the defendant is convicted and the damages which the victim suffers.”
State v. Glaspey, 55 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4)(a) — 18 cases
State v. White, 439 P.3d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The *449 applicable statutory definition of "victim" is found in ORS 137.103 : "(4) 'Victim' means: "(a) The person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic…”
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 137.103 has been amended since the restitution hearing; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Campbell, 438 P.3d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “22 in expenses arising from unrelated care, and the state accordingly subtracted that amount from the total restitution requested. During cross-examination, defendant suggested that the correct deduction was $ 967 but pursued the issue no further at the restitution hearing or on…”
State v. Kirkland, 342 P.3d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Grismore, 388 P.3d 1144 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4)(b) — 12 cases
State v. White, 439 P.3d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The *449 applicable statutory definition of "victim" is found in ORS 137.103 : "(4) 'Victim' means: "(a) The person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic…”
State v. Mann, 540 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” By its terms, ORS 137.103 refers to restitution as opposed to awarding “costs.”
State v. Lobue, 466 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “As an initial matter, we reject defendant’s conten- tion that his statement to Ellis that he had spray-painted the pickup could not be considered under ORS 137.103, because it was not an unequivocal admission with the formalities Cite as 304 Or App 13 (2020) 19 of a guilty plea.”
State v. Ceballos, 230 P.3d 954 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Alonso, 393 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “See ORS 137.103 (providing statutory definitions for terms used in ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4)(c) — 12 cases
State v. Herfurth, 388 P.3d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “ORS 137.103 has been amended since the restitution hearing; however, because those amendments do not affect our analysis, we refer to the current version of the statute in this opinion.”
State v. Boza, 473 P.3d 1161 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Workman, 455 P.3d 566 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. White, 439 P.3d 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The *449 applicable statutory definition of "victim" is found in ORS 137.103 : "(4) 'Victim' means: "(a) The person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic…”
State v. Romero-Navarro, 197 P.3d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4)(d) — 11 cases
State v. Mann, 540 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” By its terms, ORS 137.103 refers to restitution as opposed to awarding “costs.”
State v. Perdew, 467 P.3d 70 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 415 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. G. L. D., 290 P.3d 852 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Allida, 455 P.3d 1042 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(4)(e) — 3 cases
State v. Cloud, 568 P.3d 622 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Cloud, 339 Or. App. 405 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Stephens, 493 P.3d 2 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.103(5) — 1 case
In re C.W.M., 80 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 (2006).
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.