609.098
Maintaining dangerous dog.
(1) As used in this section, “dangerous dog” means a dog that:
(a) Without
provocation and in an aggressive manner inflicts serious physical injury, as
defined in ORS 161.015, on a person or kills a person;
(b) Acts as a
potentially dangerous dog, as defined in ORS 609.035, after having previously
committed an act as a potentially dangerous dog that resulted in the keeper
being found to have violated ORS 609.095; or
(c) Is used as a weapon
in the commission of a crime.
(2) A person
commits the crime of maintaining a dangerous dog if the person is the keeper of
a dog and the person, with criminal negligence, fails to prevent the dog from
engaging in an act described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Maintaining a
dangerous dog is punishable as described in ORS 609.990. [2005 c.840 §2]
Note: 609.098 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 609
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case:
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
“, ORS 609.098(l)(c) (unlawful to use dog as a weapon in the commission of a crime); ORS 811.”
State v. Kayne, 350 Or. App. 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting defendant without applying the requi- site mental state of criminal negligence.”
State v. Kayne, 350 Or. App. 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting defendant without applying the requi- site mental state of criminal negligence.”
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016).
“, ORS 609.098(1)(c) (unlawful to use dog as a weapon in the commission of a crime); ORS 811.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.098(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Kayne, 350 Or. App. 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting defendant without applying the requi- site mental state of criminal negligence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.098(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016).
“, ORS 609.098(1)(c) (unlawful to use dog as a weapon in the commission of a crime); ORS 811.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.098(2) — 2 cases
State v. Kayne, 350 Or. App. 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting defendant without applying the requi- site mental state of criminal negligence.”
State v. Kayne, 350 Or. App. 641 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of maintaining a dangerous dog, ORS 609.098. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting defendant without applying the requi- site mental state of criminal negligence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.098(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
“, ORS 609.098(l)(c) (unlawful to use dog as a weapon in the commission of a crime); ORS 811.”
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.