498.120
Hunting on another’s cultivated or enclosed land. (1) No person shall hunt upon the
cultivated or enclosed land of another without first obtaining permission from
the owner or lawful occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant.
No prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written
complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by the oath
of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed land, or the
agent of such owner or occupant.
(2) For the
purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries of “enclosed” land
may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence, water or by any visible or
distinctive lines that indicate a separation from the surrounding or contiguous
territory, and includes the established and posted boundaries of Indian
reservations established by treaties of the United States and the various
Indian tribes. [Amended by 1959 c.318 §1; 1971 c.580 §1; 1973 c.723 §83]
498.125 [Repealed by 1973 c.723 §130]
Notes of Decisions
State v. KIMBLE/BERKNER (2010)
orctapp · cites it 14×
“Defendants appeal convictions for hunting on the enclosed land of another, ORS 498.120, and aiding or sharing in a wildlife violation, ORS 496.”
State v. Burnham (2018)
orctapp
“Therefore, we adhere to our conclusion that that evidence should have been suppressed and that the error was not harmless with respect to Counts 2 and 3, hunting upon the cultivated or enclosed land of another without permission, ORS 498.120 ; Counts 5 and 6, second-degree…”
State v. Burnham (2017)
orctapp
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of hunting upon the cultivated or enclosed land of another without permission, ORS 498.120; two counts of second-degree criminal trespass, ORS 164.”
State v. Kight (2025)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that, in order to convict defendant under ORS 498.120, the state was required to prove that “[defen- dant] recklessly hunted on the enclosed land.”
State v. Kight (2025)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that, in order to convict defendant under ORS 498.120, the state was required to prove that “[defen- dant] recklessly hunted on the enclosed land.”
State v. Mankiller (2025)
orctapp
“ORS 498.120 is part of the wildlife laws and prohibits hunting on another’s land with- out permission.”
State v. Mankiller (2025)
orctapp
“ORS 498.120 is part of the wildlife laws and prohibits hunting on another’s land with- out permission.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 498.120(1) — 2 cases
State v. Kight (2025)
orctapp
“In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that, in order to convict defendant under ORS 498.120, the state was required to prove that “[defen- dant] recklessly hunted on the enclosed land.”
State v. Kight (2025)
orctapp
“In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it instructed the jury that, in order to convict defendant under ORS 498.120, the state was required to prove that “[defen- dant] recklessly hunted on the enclosed land.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 498.120(2) — 1 case
State v. KIMBLE/BERKNER (2010)
orctapp
“Defendants appeal convictions for hunting on the enclosed land of another, ORS 498.120, and aiding or sharing in a wildlife violation, ORS 496.”
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.