Legal Opinion

State v. Patton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 1, 2010No. 0402457CR; A138186PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, P. J.

At issue in this criminal case is whether the estate of a victim is itself a “person” that is entitled to restitution as a “victim” under ORS 137.106. The trial court answered that question in the affirmative and ordered defendant to pay restitution to the estate of the victim. The relevant statutory definition of “person,” however, is limited to a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, or a government entity. Because it is undisputed that a personal estate qualifies as none of those, we must conclude that it is not a “person” entitled to restitution…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. StalheimOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. BarkleyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Fernandez v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  5. State v. CarrOregon Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. McQueenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  2. State v. StoutCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. Sather v. Saif Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  5. City of Portland v. BartlettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

4 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