164.075
Extortion. (1) A
person commits the crime of extortion when the person compels or induces
another person to either deliver property or services to the person or to a
third person, or refrain from reporting unlawful conduct to a law enforcement
agency, by instilling in the other person a fear that, if the property or
services are not so delivered or if the unlawful conduct is reported, the actor
or a third person will in the future:
(a) Unlawfully
cause physical injury to some person;
(b) Unlawfully
cause damage to property;
(c) Engage in
other conduct constituting a crime;
(d) Accuse some
person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the
person;
(e) Report the
immigration status, or suspected immigration status, of the other person, or
some other person known to the other person, to a law enforcement agency;
(f) Cause or
continue a strike, boycott or other collective action injurious to some person’s
business, except that such conduct is not considered extortion when the
property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest
the actor purports to act;
(g) Testify
falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with
respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or
(h) Unlawfully
use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or
related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official
duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely.
(2) Extortion is
a Class B felony. [1971 c.743 §127; 1987 c.158 §27; 2007 c.71 §48; 2016 c.47 §2]
164.080 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case:
Davoodian v. Rivera, 535 P.3d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Davoodian v. Rivera, 535 P.3d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “In plaintiff’s view, he met his bur- den because he argued below that “the correct result would infer a civil cause of action from Oregon’s criminal extortion statute, ORS 164.075,” and because his complaint “tracks ORS 164.”
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 4× “ORS 164.075. Theft by extortion, as there defined, itself represents a significant extension of robbery by threat insofar as it includes threats of future actions that would not be unlawful or tortious if carried out.”
State v. Cox, 82 P.3d 619 (Or. 2003).
· cites it 2× “065; or “(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; or “(4) Commits theft by deception, as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Paige, 638 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “[1] As the state notes, the theft by extortion statute, ORS 164.075, is in similar language and format.”
State v. Gilbert, 574 P.2d 313 (Or. 1978).
“065; or "(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; or "(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Gholston, 639 P.2d 1302 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “ORS 164.075. Defendant appeals all three convictions, contending the court erred in denying his motion to suppress, in not allowing oral argument on the motion, in not stating the grounds for its ruling on the motion and in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Robertson, 635 P.2d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Unlike defamation action, the truth of the matter threatened to be exposed would not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this subsection. The prohibition is directed against `selling' forbearance from defamation and not against the publication of defamation itself.”
State v. Smith, 288 P.3d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“065; “(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; “(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Gilbert, 555 P.2d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “065; or "(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; or "(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Hall, 942 P.2d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “075) meant "a written or verbal declaration of the purpose of the one making it to work an injury to the person, property, or rights of another, and designedly uttered or promulgated by the individual making the threat, either directly or by some agency set in operation by him…”
State v. Rocha, 225 P.3d 45 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“065; “(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; “(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.”
State v. Jim, 508 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
“065; or “(3) Commits theft by extortion as provided in ORS 164.075; or “(4) Commits theft by deception as provided in ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1) — 3 cases
State v. Gholston, 639 P.2d 1302 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“ORS 164.075. Defendant appeals all three convictions, contending the court erred in denying his motion to suppress, in not allowing oral argument on the motion, in not stating the grounds for its ruling on the motion and in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
“ORS 164.075. Theft by extortion, as there defined, itself represents a significant extension of robbery by threat insofar as it includes threats of future actions that would not be unlawful or tortious if carried out.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(1)(e) — 2 cases
Davoodian v. Rivera, 535 P.3d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In plaintiff’s view, he met his bur- den because he argued below that “the correct result would infer a civil cause of action from Oregon’s criminal extortion statute, ORS 164.075,” and because his complaint “tracks ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.075(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Robertson, 649 P.2d 569 (Or. 1982).
“ORS 164.075. Theft by extortion, as there defined, itself represents a significant extension of robbery by threat insofar as it includes threats of future actions that would not be unlawful or tortious if carried out.”
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.