Legal Opinion

State v. Fair

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1998No. CC 94-10-37301; CA A90430; SC S43900PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.

The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s first demurrer to the indictment that charged him with violating the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (ORICO), ORS 166.715 et seq. We hold that the trial court did not err and, accordingly, reverse the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals. State v. Fair, 145 Or App 96, 929 P2d 1012 (1996).

Defendant was convicted of racketeering in violation of ORS 166.720(3), which provides, in part:

“It is unlawful for any person * * * associated with[ ] any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. MontezOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. LaundyOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1948
  4. State v. MontezOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. SandersOregon Supreme Court · 1977

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. LotchesOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. HaleOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. LyonsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  4. Antoine v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  5. State v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API