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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.102 (2026)

Obtaining execution of documents by deception

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      165.102 Obtaining execution of documents by deception.

(1) A person commits the crime of obtaining execution of documents by deception if, with intent to defraud or injure another or to acquire a substantial benefit, the person obtains by means of fraud, deceit or subterfuge the execution of a written instrument affecting or purporting to affect the pecuniary interest of any person.

      (2) Obtaining execution of documents by deception is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §168]

 

      165.105 [Amended by 1959 c.100 §1; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

 

      165.107. [1971 c.743 §169; 1995 c.222 §1; 2007 c.475 §1; 2009 c.811 §6; 2010 c.56 §5; 2011 c.450 §1; 2011 c.597 §80; 2013 c.122 §1; renumbered 165.117 in 2013]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2012 · leading case: State v. Romig, 700 P.2d 293 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Romig, 700 P.2d 293 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 14× “ORS 165.102. Defendant demurred to the indictment on the grounds that: (1) RICO is unconstitutionally overbroad in that it reaches expression protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution; (2) RICO is vague, in violation of Article 1, sections 20 and 21, of…”
State v. Richardson, 288 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “057, and obtaining execution of a document by deception, ORS 165.102, raising a number of assignments of error.”
Taylor v. Hender, 840 P.2d 1331 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “715(6)(a)(Q); ORS 165.102(1); theft by deception, ORS 166.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.102(1): 1 case
Taylor v. Hender, 840 P.2d 1331 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “715(6)(a)(Q); ORS 165.102(1); theft by deception, ORS 166.”
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.