816.330
Operation without required lighting equipment; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense
of operation without required lighting equipment if the person does any of the
following:
(a) Drives or
moves on any highway any vehicle that is not equipped with lighting equipment
that is required for the vehicle under ORS 816.320.
(b) Owns a
vehicle or combination of vehicles and causes or knowingly permits the vehicle
or combination of vehicles to be driven or moved on any highway when the
vehicle or combination is not equipped with lighting equipment that is required
for the vehicle under ORS 816.320.
(2) The
application of this section is subject to the exemptions from this section
established under ORS 816.340.
(3) The offense
described in this section, operation without required lighting equipment, is a
Class C traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §460; 1985 c.393 §14]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1990–2019 · leading case:
State v. Rodgers, 227 P.3d 695 (Or. 2010).
State v. Rodgers, 227 P.3d 695 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Rodgers Defendant Rodgers was stopped by Corvallis Police Officer Van Arsdall for driving a vehicle with a burned-out license plate light in violation of ORS 816.330. Defendant provided Van Arsdall with a valid driver license and vehicle registration, but was unable to provide…”
State v. Rodgers, 182 P.3d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Corvallis Police Officer Van Arsdall noticed that defendant was driving a car with a burned-out license plate light, a traffic infraction under ORS 816.330. Van Arsdall pulled defendant over, walked to the car, and asked defendant for his license, registration, and proof of…”
State v. Landon, 388 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“111 and ORS 816.330. He contends that the trial court denied him a full opportunity to present his defense.”
State v. Lanig, 963 P.2d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“At that time, Reed told Gore that he saw a film canister inside defendant’s purse, which was sitting on the seat beside her.”
State v. Stookey, 297 P.3d 548 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“235 (Class C traffic violation); or has a windshield covered by any material that “prohibits or impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle,” ORS 815.”
State v. Walker, 441 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “The question is whether, when ticketed, defendant had been operating a "farm tractor" that was drawing a "farm trailer" or, instead, defendant had been driving a pickup truck pulling a trailer without lights in violation of ORS 816.330. Defendant appeals from a judgment that…”
State v. Zeigler, 795 P.2d 1114 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “ORS 816.330; ORS 816.320(1)(d). 1 On de novo review, ORS 46.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 816.330(1) — 1 case
State v. Walker, 441 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“The question is whether, when ticketed, defendant had been operating a "farm tractor" that was drawing a "farm trailer" or, instead, defendant had been driving a pickup truck pulling a trailer without lights in violation of ORS 816.330. Defendant appeals from a judgment that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 816.330(2) — 1 case
State v. Walker, 441 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“The question is whether, when ticketed, defendant had been operating a "farm tractor" that was drawing a "farm trailer" or, instead, defendant had been driving a pickup truck pulling a trailer without lights in violation of ORS 816.330. Defendant appeals from a judgment that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 816.330(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lanig, 963 P.2d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“At that time, Reed told Gore that he saw a film canister inside defendant’s purse, which was sitting on the seat beside her.”
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.