Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.892 (2026)
Unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of school
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
475.892 Unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of school. (1) Except as authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980, it is unlawful for any person to deliver methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, secondary or career school attended primarily by minors.
(2) Unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school is a Class A felony.
(3) The minimum fine for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school is $500. [2005 c.708 §17; 2011 c.597 §14]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: State v. Rodriguez-Gomez, 256 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Rodriguez-Gomez, 256 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “890, and two counts of delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892. On appeal, defendant’s first four assignments of error concern the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on each count.”
State v. Fischer, 500 P.3d 29 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “852 (heroin) (Count 1) and ORS 475.892 (methamphetamine) (Count 2). We reject without discus- sion her third assignment that the court erred by denying her special jury instruction under ORS 475.”
State v. Daniels, 234 P.3d 976 (Or. 2010). “894, 4 and one count of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892. At trial, defendant twice moved for a judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Klingler, 393 P.3d 737 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “After his home, a recreational vehicle (RV), was searched pursuant to a search warrant, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
State v. Rion, 486 P.3d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Cite as 311 Or App 222 (2021) 223 PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his pro- bation on a conviction for delivery of methamphetamine within 100 feet of a school, ORS 475.892. He argues that the court erred in imposing a $25 probation-violation fee in the judgment,…”
State v. Jimenez, 506 P.3d 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “270), delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school (ORS 475.892), and delivery of methamphetamine (ORS 475.”
Welsh v. Taylor, 392 P.3d 366 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Petitioner was convicted of one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, one count of unlawful delivery of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.”
State v. Watts, 314 P.3d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “894, and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892. 1 Defendant appeals, raising four assignments of error, three of which assert that the trial court erred in entering a judgment based on a nonunanimous jury verdict.”
Flores v. Brown, 341 Or. App. 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Petitioner appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) from convictions for delivery of methamphet- amine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, and deliv- ery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
Flores v. Brown, 341 Or. App. 815 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Petitioner appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) from convictions for delivery of methamphet- amine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, and deliv- ery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
State v. Mickley, 444 P.3d 1133 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “PER CURIAM *551 Defendant was convicted of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892 (Count 1); unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
State v. Kinsley, 289 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892; delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.”
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.