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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.305 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 164.305 to 164.377

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

      164.305 Definitions for ORS 164.305 to 164.377. As used in ORS 164.305 to 164.377, except as the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Protected property” means any structure, place or thing customarily occupied by people, including “public buildings” as defined by ORS 479.168 and “forestland,” as defined by ORS 477.001.

      (2) “Property of another” means property in which anyone other than the actor has a legal or equitable interest that the actor has no right to defeat or impair, even though the actor may also have such an interest in the property. [1971 c.743 §141; 1977 c.640 §1; 1989 c.584 §1; 2003 c.543 §1]

 

      164.310 [Amended by 1957 c.653 §1; 1959 c.302 §2; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Dickerson, 345 P.3d 447 (Or. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dickerson, 345 P.3d 447 (Or. 2015). · cites it 18× “In considering whether the state had proved that defendant acted with intent to damage the “property of another,” the court examined the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 164.305(2), which defines the phrase “property of another” for purposes of the criminal mischief…”
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “” See also ORS 164.305 (defining protected property as “any structure, place or thing customarily occupied by people, including ‘public buildings’ as defined by ORS 479.”
State v. Dickerson, 317 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “354, 1 arguing that the state failed to prove that he intentionally damaged the “property of another,” ORS 164.305(2). 2 Defendant was charged with damaging the property of the state, and he was convicted based on evidence that he aided and abetted his son in shooting two…”
State v. Crawford, 171 P.3d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Given the definition in ORS 164.305 of ‘protected property,’ however — property ‘customarily occupied by people’ — we understand those two consequences to reflect a single concern, namely, to protect human life and safety.”
State v. Nyhuis, 284 P.3d 1229 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “ORS 164.305 provides that, for purpose of arson-related offenses, “property of another” means “property in which anyone other than the actor has a legal or equitable interest that the actor has no right to defeat or impair!.”
State v. Haynes, 942 P.2d 295 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “We affirm, writing only to address his argument that the trial court should have granted his motions for judgment of acquittal on two of the charges on the ground that the state failed to establish that the two churches that he burned were “protected property” within the meaning…”
Chernaik v. Brown, 436 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “To answer that question, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the state's sovereign interest in wild deer and concluded that "the state's sovereign interest in wild animals is in the nature of a 'legal * * * interest' within the meaning of ORS 164.305(2)." Id . at 834, 345…”
State v. Stockett, 565 P.2d 739 (Or. 1977). “ORS 164.305; 164.325. 2 The pertinent statutes are: ORS 161.”
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “325(l)(b) also requires that the conduct of intentionally damaging property recklessly place another person in danger of physical injury or place protected property — again, property customarily occupied by people, ORS 164.305(1) — in danger of damage. * * * [W]e conclude that…”
State v. Leckenby, 117 P.3d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “325 and ORS 164.305. 1 Defendant admitted entering the duplex through the bedroom window.”
State v. Perez, 508 P.2d 833 (Or. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 5× “325 and ORS 164.305 (1). On the evening of August 26, 1972, Ontario Police Officer Don Howes parked his Chevrolet pickup and Kit camper in Ray’s Food Fair parking lot.”
State v. Nix, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “, ORS 164.305(2). If the legislature had intended to protect an owner’s property interest in an animal, it would have been natural to adopt the extensive definitions of “property” used elsewhere in the Criminal Code.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.305(1) — 11 cases
State v. Luers, 153 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “” See also ORS 164.305 (defining protected property as “any structure, place or thing customarily occupied by people, including ‘public buildings’ as defined by ORS 479.”
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “325(l)(b) also requires that the conduct of intentionally damaging property recklessly place another person in danger of physical injury or place protected property — again, property customarily occupied by people, ORS 164.305(1) — in danger of damage. * * * [W]e conclude that…”
State v. Mills, 273 P.3d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Roff, 765 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Underhill, 341 Or. App. 834 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.305(2) — 10 cases
State v. Dickerson, 345 P.3d 447 (Or. 2015). “In considering whether the state had proved that defendant acted with intent to damage the “property of another,” the court examined the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 164.305(2), which defines the phrase “property of another” for purposes of the criminal mischief…”
State v. Dickerson, 317 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “354, 1 arguing that the state failed to prove that he intentionally damaged the “property of another,” ORS 164.305(2). 2 Defendant was charged with damaging the property of the state, and he was convicted based on evidence that he aided and abetted his son in shooting two…”
State v. Haynes, 942 P.2d 295 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “We affirm, writing only to address his argument that the trial court should have granted his motions for judgment of acquittal on two of the charges on the ground that the state failed to establish that the two churches that he burned were “protected property” within the meaning…”
Chernaik v. Brown, 436 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “To answer that question, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the state's sovereign interest in wild deer and concluded that "the state's sovereign interest in wild animals is in the nature of a 'legal * * * interest' within the meaning of ORS 164.305(2)." Id . at 834, 345…”
State v. Nyhuis, 284 P.3d 1229 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 164.305 provides that, for purpose of arson-related offenses, “property of another” means “property in which anyone other than the actor has a legal or equitable interest that the actor has no right to defeat or impair!.”
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.