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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.428 (2026)

Cockfighting

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

      167.428 Cockfighting. (1) A person commits the crime of cockfighting if the person knowingly:

      (a) Owns, possesses, keeps, rears, trains, buys, sells or advertises or otherwise offers to sell a fighting bird.

      (b) Promotes or participates in, or performs services in furtherance of, the conducting of a cockfight. As used in this paragraph, “services in furtherance” includes, but is not limited to, transporting spectators to a cockfight, handling fighting birds, organizing, advertising or refereeing a cockfight and providing, or acting as stakeholder for, money wagered on a cockfight.

      (c) Keeps, uses or manages, or accepts payment of admission to, a place for the conducting of a cockfight.

      (d) Suffers or permits a place in the possession or control of the person to be occupied, kept or used for the conducting of a cockfight.

      (2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to the owning, possessing, keeping, rearing, buying, selling, advertising or otherwise offering for sale of a bird for purposes other than training the bird as a fighting bird, using or intending to use the bird in cockfighting or supplying the bird knowing that the bird is intended to be used in cockfighting.

      (3) Cockfighting is a Class C felony. [2003 c.484 §2; 2018 c.19 §1]

 

      167.430 [Amended by 1961 c.648 §8; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Martin Ramos-Reyes v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martin Ramos-Reyes v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021). “Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.428 (2). 2. Because the BIA considered Petitioner’s “imputed nationality” argument on de novo review, any error committed by the immigration judge was harmless.”
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.