164.105 Right
of possession.
Right of possession of property is as follows:
(1) A person who
has obtained possession of property by theft or other illegal means shall be
deemed to have a right of possession superior to that of another person who
takes, obtains or withholds the property from that person by means of theft.
(2) A joint or
common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession of
the property superior to that of any other joint or common owner of the
property.
(3) In the
absence of a specific agreement to the contrary, a person in lawful possession
of property shall be deemed to have a right of possession superior to that of a
person having only a security interest in the property, even if legal title to
the property lies with the holder of the security interest pursuant to a
conditional sale contract or other security agreement. [1971 c.743 §130; 1987
c.158 §28]
164.110 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1975–2015 · leading case:
State v. Durant, 857 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Durant, 857 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 7× “015(1) and ORS 164.105(2) are read together, apartner cannot be convicted of the theft of partnership property.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Carstens, 683 P.2d 992 (Or. 1984).
“035(4) clearly directs that those thefts be dismissed.” 4 The trial court also reasoned that thé alleged *160 theft of the pickup wherein the wife was the alleged victim must also be dismissed by virtue of ORS 164.”
State v. Dollar, 45 P.3d 1014 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “]” Based on Garcia’s testimony that defendant’s employer had given defendant the car, defendant sought to have the trial court instruct the jury concerning the right of possession of a joint owner, as described in ORS 164.105(2): “A j oint or common owner of property shall not…”
State v. Niehuser, 533 P.2d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“” ORS 164.105(1). *36 Substantially the same concept as expressed in the above combination of statutes is stated in a more specific definition of theft: “A person commits theft by receiving if he receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another * * ORS 164.”
State v. Tarpley, 972 P.2d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“” ORS 164.105 (emphasis added). As noted, under ORS 164.”
State v. Simonsen, 364 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “*157 Defendant also assigns error to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the rule of joint ownership that is set out in ORS 164.105(2): “A joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession of the property superior to that of any…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.105(1) — 1 case
State v. Niehuser, 533 P.2d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“” ORS 164.105(1). *36 Substantially the same concept as expressed in the above combination of statutes is stated in a more specific definition of theft: “A person commits theft by receiving if he receives, retains, conceals or disposes of property of another * * ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.105(2) — 4 cases
State v. Durant, 857 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“015(1) and ORS 164.105(2) are read together, apartner cannot be convicted of the theft of partnership property.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Carstens, 683 P.2d 992 (Or. 1984).
“035(4) clearly directs that those thefts be dismissed.” 4 The trial court also reasoned that thé alleged *160 theft of the pickup wherein the wife was the alleged victim must also be dismissed by virtue of ORS 164.”
State v. Dollar, 45 P.3d 1014 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“]” Based on Garcia’s testimony that defendant’s employer had given defendant the car, defendant sought to have the trial court instruct the jury concerning the right of possession of a joint owner, as described in ORS 164.105(2): “A j oint or common owner of property shall not…”
State v. Simonsen, 364 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“*157 Defendant also assigns error to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the rule of joint ownership that is set out in ORS 164.105(2): “A joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession of the property superior to that of any…”
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.