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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.760 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 163.760 to 163.777

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

      163.760 Definitions for ORS 163.760 to 163.777. As used in ORS 163.760 to 163.777:

      (1) “Declaration under penalty of perjury,” “family or household members,” “interfere,” “intimidate,” “menace” and “molest” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 107.705.

      (2) “Sexual abuse” means sexual contact with:

      (a) A person who does not consent to the sexual contact; or

      (b) A person who is considered incapable of consenting to a sexual act under ORS 163.315, unless the sexual contact would be lawful under ORS 163.325 or 163.345.

      (3) “Sexual contact” has the meaning given that term in ORS 163.305. [2013 c.687 §1; 2015 c.121 §21]

 

      Note: 163.760 to 163.777 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “777, a person may obtain a SAPO if the person has been subjected to sexual abuse by someone who is not a “family or household member” and the person fears for their physical safety if a restraining order is not entered. Petitioner obtained a SAPO against respondent, which…”
State v. Parra-Sanchez, 527 P.3d 1008 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In its original enactment of ORS 163.760, and in all subsequent amendments, there is not a single instance from the legislative record that shows the legislature, which sought to combat child pornography, ever envisioned the conduct at issue here as falling under the ambit of…”
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Petitioner obtained a sexual abuse protective order (SAPO) against respondent pursuant to ORS 163.760 to 163.777. After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO, finding that petitioner had been subject to sex- ual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably…”
State v. Cervantes, 351 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “That rule reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in a prosecution for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section or in a proceeding conducted under ORS 163.760 to 163.777, evidence of an…”
M. B. v. Clark, 326 Or. App. 840 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Respondent appeals from the entry of a sexual abuse protective order (SAPO) against him pursuant to ORS 163.760 to 163.777. On appeal, respondent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory requirement that petitioner’s subjective fear was objectively…”
State v. Olinger, 333 Or. App. 271 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “1 Defendant pleaded guilty to using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.760, third-degree sodomy, ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.760(1) — 1 case
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “777, a person may obtain a SAPO if the person has been subjected to sexual abuse by someone who is not a “family or household member” and the person fears for their physical safety if a restraining order is not entered. Petitioner obtained a SAPO against respondent, which…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.760(2) — 2 cases
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “777, a person may obtain a SAPO if the person has been subjected to sexual abuse by someone who is not a “family or household member” and the person fears for their physical safety if a restraining order is not entered. Petitioner obtained a SAPO against respondent, which…”
C. J. v. Flores, 505 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Petitioner obtained a sexual abuse protective order (SAPO) against respondent pursuant to ORS 163.760 to 163.777. After a contested hearing, the trial court continued the SAPO, finding that petitioner had been subject to sex- ual abuse by respondent and that she reasonably…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.760(3) — 1 case
E. H. v. Byrne, 487 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “777, a person may obtain a SAPO if the person has been subjected to sexual abuse by someone who is not a “family or household member” and the person fears for their physical safety if a restraining order is not entered. Petitioner obtained a SAPO against respondent, which…”
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.