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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 162.005 to 162.425

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

      162.005 Definitions for ORS 162.005 to 162.425. As used in ORS 162.005 to 162.425, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Pecuniary benefit” means gain or advantage to the beneficiary or to a third person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary, in the form of money, property, commercial interests or economic gain, but does not include a political campaign contribution reported in accordance with ORS chapter 260, unless the contribution is made in exchange for a promise to perform or not perform an official act.

      (2) “Public servant” means:

      (a) A public official as defined in ORS 244.020;

      (b) A person serving as an advisor, consultant or assistant at the request or direction of the state, any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state;

      (c) A person nominated, elected or appointed to become a public servant, although not yet occupying the position; and

      (d) Jurors. [1971 c.743 §178; 2007 c.865 §22; 2024 c.9 §20a]

 

      162.010 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

BRIBERY

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 20× “Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument based on the definition in the supposedly related statute, ORS 162.005. That argument is premised on the maxim that Oregon courts “ordinarily assume that the legislature uses terms in related statutes consistently.”
State v. Gyenes, 855 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “" ORS 162.005. (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 135.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “" ORS 162.005(1). [10] See, e.g., ORS 316.102 (tax credits available for contributions to political action committees); ORS 317.”
State v. Florea, 677 P.2d 698 (Or. 1984). “2 ORS 162.005: “(2) ‘Public servant’ includes: “(a) A public officer or employe of the state or of any political subdivision thereof or of any governmental instrumentality within the state; “(b) A person serving as an advisor, consultant or assistant at the request or direction…”
In Re Parker, 838 P.2d 54 (Or. 1992). “365 are found in ORS 162.005, which provides in part: “(1) ‘Pecuniary benefit’ means gain or advantage to the beneficiary or to a third person pursuant to the desire or *153 consent of the beneficiary, in the form of money, property, commercial interests or economic gain * * *.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanon, 336 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “(stating that the legislature’s use of the term “includes” in ORS 162.005 (1971) “is evidence that it intended the enumerated examples to be open-ended rather than exclusive”).”
State v. Hayes, 843 P.2d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “The majority wrongly departs from the statutory definition by concluding that defendant’s response was not a statement within the meaning of ORS 162.005(3). To reach that conclusion, it circumvents the express language of the statute and announces a new rule of law that is not…”
Wilhelms v. Rosenblum, 525 P.3d 852 (Or. 2023). “Amends ORS 162.005 to remove exception for reported campaign contributions in bribery statutes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gyenes, 855 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “" ORS 162.005. (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 135.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers-Oregon v. Oregon Taxpayers United Pac, 145 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “" ORS 162.005(1). [10] See, e.g., ORS 316.102 (tax credits available for contributions to political action committees); ORS 317.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005(2) — 1 case
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument based on the definition in the supposedly related statute, ORS 162.005. That argument is premised on the maxim that Oregon courts “ordinarily assume that the legislature uses terms in related statutes consistently.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument based on the definition in the supposedly related statute, ORS 162.005. That argument is premised on the maxim that Oregon courts “ordinarily assume that the legislature uses terms in related statutes consistently.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005(3) — 1 case
State v. Hayes, 843 P.2d 944 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “The majority wrongly departs from the statutory definition by concluding that defendant’s response was not a statement within the meaning of ORS 162.005(3). To reach that conclusion, it circumvents the express language of the statute and announces a new rule of law that is not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.005(b) — 1 case
State v. Fox, 324 P.3d 608 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Nor are we persuaded by defendant’s argument based on the definition in the supposedly related statute, ORS 162.005. That argument is premised on the maxim that Oregon courts “ordinarily assume that the legislature uses terms in related statutes consistently.”
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.