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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.229 (2026)

Use of physical force in defense of property

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

      161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

 

      161.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cox, 540 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “ORS 161.229 (“A person is justified in using phys- ical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the com- mission or attempted commission by the other person…”
Brown v. Roach, 277 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “See ORS 161.229 (“A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person…”
State v. Lockwood, 603 P.2d 1231 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “” ORS 161.229. "Except as provided in ORS 161.”
Warren v. Baldwin, 915 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “225, defense of property, ORS 161.229, and choice of evils, ORS 161.”
State v. Dahrens, 84 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “ORS 161.229. The evidence in the record is insufficient to support a finding that, when defendant accelerated his car, he had reason to believe that Runyon was attempting to reclaim the speakers or to damage the car.”
State v. Williams, 374 Or. 648 (Or. 2025). “225 (justifying the use of “physical force in defense of premises”); ORS 161.229 (justifying the use of “physical force in defense of property”).”
State v. Williams, 374 Or. 648 (Or. 2025). “225 (justifying the use of “physical force in defense of premises”); ORS 161.229 (justifying the use of “physical force in defense of property”).”
State v. Chelson, 157 P.3d 258 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “At trial, defendant asserted a defense of protection of property under ORS 161.229, which provides that “[a] person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be…”
State v. Hollowell, 521 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “One of the instructions, which related to the lawfulness of defense of property by the victim, was based on ORS 161.229. The other instruc *221 tion, regarding out-of-court statements made by defendant, was Oregon State Bar Uniform Jury Instruction No.”
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.