164.115 Value
of property. For
the purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the value of property shall be
ascertained as follows:
(1) Except as
otherwise specified in this section, value means the market value of the
property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot reasonably be
ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time
after the crime.
(2) Whether or
not they have been issued or delivered, certain written instruments, not
including those having a readily ascertainable market value, shall be evaluated
as follows:
(a) The value of
an instrument constituting an evidence of debt, including, but not limited to,
a check, draft or promissory note, shall be considered the amount due or
collectible thereon or thereby.
(b) The value of
any other instrument which creates, releases, discharges or otherwise affects
any valuable legal right, privilege or obligation shall be considered the
greatest amount of economic loss which the owner might reasonably suffer
because of the loss of the instrument.
(3) The value of
a gambling chip, token, imitation currency or similar device is its face value.
(4)(a) The value
of the wildlife listed in ORS 496.705 is the amount of damages as specified in
ORS 496.705.
(b) The value of
the wildlife listed on the list of prohibited species, as defined in ORS
498.072, is the amount of damages as specified in ORS 498.073.
(5) When the
value of property cannot reasonably be ascertained, it shall be presumed to be
an amount less than $100 in a case of theft, and less than $500 in any other
case.
(6) The value of
single theft transactions may be added together if the thefts were committed
against the same or multiple victims within a one-year period. [1971 c.743 §131;
1987 c.907 §6; 1993 c.680 §22; 1997 c.867 §18; 2011 c.363 §2; 2019 c.399 §5;
2022 c.9 §7; 2023 c.151 §6]
Note: See note under 164.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case:
State v. Slater, 487 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Slater, 487 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “” ORS 164.115(1). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the market value of the stolen items was not reasonably ascertainable and in relying on evidence of replacement value.”
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “As the Supreme Court explained in Islam , “[ORS 164.115], by its terms, applies to statutes that were part of the 1971 criminal code, and ORS 137.”
State v. Islam, 377 P.3d 533 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In the present case, we are not called upon to interpret the provisions of ORS 164.115 relating to “market value” for purposes of determining what theft crime has been committed, because that statute, by its terms, applies to statutes that were part of the 1971 criminal code,…”
State v. Waterhouse, 373 P.3d 131 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Valuing the items stolen was governed by ORS 164.115 which—then as now—defined the term “value” as used in the theft statutes as either (1) market value, (2) replacement value, or (3) a presumed value of less than $50 in the event actual value could not be reasonably…”
State v. Mays, 429 P.3d 1061 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “11 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the trial court, acting as trier of fact, could have found that the market value of the used climbing gear stolen from SH could not "reasonably be ascertained," ORS 164.115, and the record supports the replacement…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Deford, 34 P.3d 673 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “) The measure of “value” is described in ORS 164.115: “For the purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the value of property shall be ascertained as follows: “(1) * * * [V]alue means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot…”
State v. Savastano, 309 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 3× “” Former ORS 164.115(5) (2007), renumbered as ORS 164.”
State v. Waterhouse, 337 P.3d 195 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 14× “The valuation of stolen property is governed by ORS 164.115, which provides, in relevant part: “[T]he value of property shall be ascertained as follows: “(1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the…”
State v. Stutte, 568 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “ORS 164.115(1) (generally defining “value” to mean “the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot reasonably be ascertained, the cost of replace- ment of the property within a reasonable time after the crime”); but see also ORS 164.”
State v. Callaghan, 576 P.2d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The contention is that the state failed to establish the "market value” of the property which was the subject of the theft, ORS 164.115, 8 because the only evidence of value is the invoice price of the goods.”
State v. Pulver, 95 P.3d 250 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “ORS 164.115 specifies how the value of an item is to be determined for purposes of a theft prosecution.”
State v. G. L. D., 290 P.3d 852 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “See ORS 164.115(1) (for purposes of theft statutes, “value” means market value).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(1) — 27 cases
State v. Slater, 487 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“” ORS 164.115(1). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the market value of the stolen items was not reasonably ascertainable and in relying on evidence of replacement value.”
State v. Mays, 429 P.3d 1061 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“11 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the trial court, acting as trier of fact, could have found that the market value of the used climbing gear stolen from SH could not "reasonably be ascertained," ORS 164.115, and the record supports the replacement…”
State v. Islam, 377 P.3d 533 (Or. 2016).
“In the present case, we are not called upon to interpret the provisions of ORS 164.115 relating to “market value” for purposes of determining what theft crime has been committed, because that statute, by its terms, applies to statutes that were part of the 1971 criminal code,…”
State v. Waterhouse, 373 P.3d 131 (Or. 2016).
“Valuing the items stolen was governed by ORS 164.115 which—then as now—defined the term “value” as used in the theft statutes as either (1) market value, (2) replacement value, or (3) a presumed value of less than $50 in the event actual value could not be reasonably…”
State v. G. L. D., 290 P.3d 852 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“See ORS 164.115(1) (for purposes of theft statutes, “value” means market value).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(2) — 1 case
State v. Stutte, 568 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“ORS 164.115(1) (generally defining “value” to mean “the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot reasonably be ascertained, the cost of replace- ment of the property within a reasonable time after the crime”); but see also ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(4) — 4 cases
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As the Supreme Court explained in Islam , “[ORS 164.115], by its terms, applies to statutes that were part of the 1971 criminal code, and ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(5) — 10 cases
State v. Slater, 487 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“” ORS 164.115(1). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the market value of the stolen items was not reasonably ascertainable and in relying on evidence of replacement value.”
State v. Savastano, 309 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2013).
“” Former ORS 164.115(5) (2007), renumbered as ORS 164.”
State v. Waterhouse, 373 P.3d 131 (Or. 2016).
“Valuing the items stolen was governed by ORS 164.115 which—then as now—defined the term “value” as used in the theft statutes as either (1) market value, (2) replacement value, or (3) a presumed value of less than $50 in the event actual value could not be reasonably…”
State v. Waterhouse, 337 P.3d 195 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“The valuation of stolen property is governed by ORS 164.115, which provides, in relevant part: “[T]he value of property shall be ascertained as follows: “(1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(5)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(6) — 2 cases
State v. Savastano, 309 P.3d 1083 (Or. 2013).
“” Former ORS 164.115(5) (2007), renumbered as ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.115(l) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Deford, 34 P.3d 673 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“) The measure of “value” is described in ORS 164.115: “For the purposes of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, the value of property shall be ascertained as follows: “(1) * * * [V]alue means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot…”
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.