161.170
Criminal liability of corporations.
(1) A corporation is guilty of an offense if:
(a) The conduct
constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while
acting within the scope of employment and in behalf of the corporation and the
offense is a misdemeanor or a violation, or the offense is one defined by a
statute that clearly indicates a legislative intent to impose criminal
liability on a corporation; or
(b) The conduct
constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty
of affirmative performance imposed on corporations by law; or
(c) The conduct
constituting the offense is engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested,
commanded or knowingly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high
managerial agent acting within the scope of employment and in behalf of the
corporation.
(2) As used in
this section:
(a) “Agent” means
any director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is
authorized to act in behalf of the corporation.
(b) “High
managerial agent” means an officer of a corporation who exercises authority
with respect to the formulation of corporate policy or the supervision in a
managerial capacity of subordinate employees, or any other agent in a position
of comparable authority. [1971 c.743 §16]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Oregon City Elks Lodge No. 1189, 520 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Defendant contends, inter alia, that the indictment does not state a crime because it does not allege specifically how defendant corporation is criminally liable under ORS 161.170. ④ Defendant contends that since the corporation is criminally liable only under the circumstances…”
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As noted, the rule imposes the same requirements for cash price displays on a street sign that the statute does, requiring the display of conditions to obtain the lowest cash price.”
Gattuccio v. Averill, 362 P.3d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “100 for the proposition that the term “person” includes organizational entities, and ORS 161.170(1) for the proposition that such entities, under certain circumstances, can be convicted of crimes, including those that defendant argues organizational entities are incapable of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.170(1) — 2 cases
BP West Coast Prods., LLP v. Oregon Dep't of Just., 396 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As noted, the rule imposes the same requirements for cash price displays on a street sign that the statute does, requiring the display of conditions to obtain the lowest cash price.”
Gattuccio v. Averill, 362 P.3d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“100 for the proposition that the term “person” includes organizational entities, and ORS 161.170(1) for the proposition that such entities, under certain circumstances, can be convicted of crimes, including those that defendant argues organizational entities are incapable of…”
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.