137.109 Effect
of restitution order on other remedies of victim; credit of restitution against
subsequent civil judgment; effect of criminal judgment on subsequent civil
action. (1)
Nothing in ORS 137.103 to 137.109, 137.540, 144.102, 144.275, 161.675 and
161.685 limits or impairs the right of a person injured by a defendant’s
commission of a crime, by a defendant’s commission of a violation described in
ORS 153.008, or by a defendant’s commission of an act that has brought the
defendant before the court for the purpose of entering into a driving while
under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement, to sue and recover
damages from the defendant in a civil action. Evidence that the defendant has
paid or been ordered to pay restitution pursuant to ORS 137.103 to 137.109,
137.540, 144.102, 144.275, 161.675 and 161.685 may not be introduced in any
civil action arising out of the facts or events that were the basis for the restitution.
However, the court shall credit any restitution paid by the defendant to a
victim, or paid to the Department of Justice under ORS 137.102, against any
judgment in favor of the victim in such civil action.
(2) If conviction
in a criminal trial necessarily decides the issue of a defendant’s liability
for economic damages of a victim, that issue is conclusively determined as to
the defendant if it is involved in a subsequent civil action. [1977 c.371 §7;
1993 c.533 §2; 1997 c.526 §4; 1999 c.1051 §125; 2005 c.564 §3; 2013 c.78 §8;
2025 c.360 §4]
137.110 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
137.111 [1955 c.636 §3; 1961 c.424 §1;
repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
137.112 [1953 c.641 §2; 1955 c.252 §1;
1955 c.636 §1; 1961 c.424 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
137.113 [1953 c.641 §3; 1955 c.252 §2;
1961 c.424 §3; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
137.114 [1953 c.641 §4; repealed by 1971
c.743 §432]
137.115 [1953 c.641 §5; repealed by 1971
c.743 §432]
137.116 [1953 c.641 §6; 1955 c.252 §3;
1955 c.636 §2; repealed by 1961 c.424 §9]
137.117 [1955 c.636 §10; 1961 c.266 §1;
1961 c.424 §4; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
(Collection of Monetary
Obligations)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Dillon, 637 P.2d 602 (Or. 1981).
State v. Dillon, 637 P.2d 602 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 137.109: “(1) Nothing in ORS 137.103 to 137.”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “103 to ORS 137.109. The enactments were intended to codify Stalheim in certain respects and to depart from it in others.”
State v. Hart, 699 P.2d 1113 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 3× “ORS 137.109(1) specifically provides that a restitution order does not limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
State v. Manwiller, 435 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “(quoting ORS 137.109(1) ). *384 That is, notwithstanding that *779 claim preclusion would have likely precluded a subsequent civil action by the victim in Hull , we concluded that the state was entitled to seek, and the trial court was authorized to impose, restitution on the…”
Shannon v. Moffett, 604 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “ORS 137.109(2) provides: "If conviction in a criminal trial necessarily decides the issue of a defendant’s liability for pecuniary damages of a victim, that issue is conclusively determined as to the defendant if it is involved in a subsequent civil action.”
State v. Thompson, 908 P.2d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “) ORS 137.109 provides, in relevant part: “(1) [T]he court shall credit any restitution paid by the defendant to the victim against any judgment in favor of the victim in such civil action.”
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “ORS 137.109(2) says: "(2) If conviction in a criminal trial necessarily decides the issue of a defendant's liability for pecuniary damages of a victim, that issue is conclusively determined as to the defendant if it is involved in a subsequent civil action.”
State v. Carachuri, 544 P.3d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“ORS 137.109. It is, thus, a combination of damages recover- able through civil proceedings and through criminal resti- tution that may potentially make the victim whole.”
Thorne v. Gay, 758 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Further, ORS 137.109(1) specifically recognizes that the restitution statutes do not “limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. of Oregon v. Berry (In Re Berry), 3 B.R. 430 (Bankr. D. Or. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Section 137.109 ORS provides: “137.109 EFFECT OF RESTITUTION ORDER ON OTHER REMEDIES OF VICTIM; CREDIT OF RESTITUTION AGAINST SUBSEQUENT CIVIL JUDGMENT; EFFECT OF CRIMINAL JUDGMENT ON SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION.”
In Re Limbaugh, 194 B.R. 488 (Bankr. D. Or. 1996).
“ORS 137.109 requires the court to credit the restitution amounts paid by the defendant to the victim against any civil judgment in favor of the victim.”
State v. Hull, 683 P.2d 157 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“” ORS 137.109(1). We find no error. 1 *821 Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to allocate restitution specifically to the individual counts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.109(1) — 8 cases
State v. Hart, 699 P.2d 1113 (Or. 1985).
“ORS 137.109(1) specifically provides that a restitution order does not limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
State v. Manwiller, 435 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“(quoting ORS 137.109(1) ). *384 That is, notwithstanding that *779 claim preclusion would have likely precluded a subsequent civil action by the victim in Hull , we concluded that the state was entitled to seek, and the trial court was authorized to impose, restitution on the…”
State v. Dillon, 637 P.2d 602 (Or. 1981).
“” ORS 137.109: “(1) Nothing in ORS 137.103 to 137.”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“103 to ORS 137.109. The enactments were intended to codify Stalheim in certain respects and to depart from it in others.”
Thorne v. Gay, 758 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Further, ORS 137.109(1) specifically recognizes that the restitution statutes do not “limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.109(2) — 8 cases
State v. Dillon, 637 P.2d 602 (Or. 1981).
“” ORS 137.109: “(1) Nothing in ORS 137.103 to 137.”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“103 to ORS 137.109. The enactments were intended to codify Stalheim in certain respects and to depart from it in others.”
Shannon v. Moffett, 604 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“ORS 137.109(2) provides: "If conviction in a criminal trial necessarily decides the issue of a defendant’s liability for pecuniary damages of a victim, that issue is conclusively determined as to the defendant if it is involved in a subsequent civil action.”
State v. Hart, 699 P.2d 1113 (Or. 1985).
“ORS 137.109(1) specifically provides that a restitution order does not limit or impair the right of a person injured by a defendant’s criminal activities to sue and recover damages from the defendant in a civil action.”
State v. Eastman, 626 P.2d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“ORS 137.109(2) says: "(2) If conviction in a criminal trial necessarily decides the issue of a defendant's liability for pecuniary damages of a victim, that issue is conclusively determined as to the defendant if it is involved in a subsequent civil action.”
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.