Legal Opinion

State v. Johnsen

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1998No. CC 96NB1336; CA A95345; SC S44606PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

The issue in this criminal proceeding is whether payment of a civil penalty pursuant to ORS 30.875 is “satisfaction for the injury” for the purpose of ORS 135.703 et seq. (civil compromise statutes). The Court of Appeals held that such payment is not “satisfaction for the injury.” State v. Johnsen, 149 Or App 711, 945 P2d 1064 (1997). We conclude that it is. Accordingly, we reverse the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals.

On September 23, 1996, the state filed an information charging defendant with the Class A misdemeanor of theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045, for allegedly stealing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Holcomb v. SunderlandOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State v. DumondOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State v. Binh Thi Thanh HaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  5. State v. JohnsenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Home Indemnity Co. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  2. State v. BilbaoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  3. State v. BilbaoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API