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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.045 (2026)

Limits on application

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

      161.045 Limits on application. (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided, the procedure governing the accusation, prosecution, conviction and punishment of offenders and offenses is not regulated by chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, but by the criminal procedure statutes.

      (2) Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, does not affect any power conferred by law upon a court-martial or other military authority or officer to prosecute and punish conduct and offenders violating military codes or laws.

      (3) Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, does not bar, suspend or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action, regardless of whether the conduct involved in the proceeding constitutes an offense defined in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.

      (4) No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law. [1971 c.743 §6]

 

      Note: See note under 161.015.

 

      161.050 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). · cites it 4× “That the legislature did not intend by implication to incite this court to change common law rules concerning damages appears from ORS 161.045(3): "Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, does not bar, suspend or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or…”
Farris v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 587 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1978). · cites it 2× “However, it was decided that by the enactment of ORS 161.045(3) the legislature demonstrated that it did not intend criminal sanctions to exclude the imposition of civil sanctions by way of punitive damages.”
State v. Wills, 761 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 161.045(4) provides: “No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Under ORS 161.045(4), “[n]o conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
Multnomah Cnty. V. $5,650 In U.S. Currency, 786 P.2d 729 (Or. 1990). “Although provisions of the criminal code, ORS 161.045(3), racketeering law, ORS 166.”
State v. Griffin, 684 P.2d 32 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “He relies on ORS 161.045(4), which provides that “no conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of his property, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Olson, 268 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 161.045(4) provides, “No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
Multnomah Cnty. v. $5,650 in U.S. Currency, 774 P.2d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “” *430 Similarly, ORS 161.045(3) provides that the state criminal code “does not bar, suspend or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action * * We conclude, once again,…”
State v. Youngs, 301 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “See ORS 161.045(4) (“No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.045(3) — 4 cases
Roshak v. Leathers, 560 P.2d 275 (Or. 1977). “That the legislature did not intend by implication to incite this court to change common law rules concerning damages appears from ORS 161.045(3): "Chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, does not bar, suspend or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or…”
Farris v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 587 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1978). “However, it was decided that by the enactment of ORS 161.045(3) the legislature demonstrated that it did not intend criminal sanctions to exclude the imposition of civil sanctions by way of punitive damages.”
Multnomah Cnty. V. $5,650 In U.S. Currency, 786 P.2d 729 (Or. 1990). “Although provisions of the criminal code, ORS 161.045(3), racketeering law, ORS 166.”
Multnomah Cnty. v. $5,650 in U.S. Currency, 774 P.2d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “” *430 Similarly, ORS 161.045(3) provides that the state criminal code “does not bar, suspend or otherwise affect any right or liability to damages, penalty, forfeiture or other remedy authorized by law to be recovered or enforced in a civil action * * We conclude, once again,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.045(4) — 5 cases
State v. Wills, 761 P.2d 1365 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 161.045(4) provides: “No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Miller, 325 P.3d 787 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Under ORS 161.045(4), “[n]o conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Griffin, 684 P.2d 32 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “He relies on ORS 161.045(4), which provides that “no conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of his property, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Olson, 268 P.3d 679 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 161.045(4) provides, “No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
State v. Youngs, 301 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “See ORS 161.045(4) (“No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”
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.