Legal Opinion

State v. Kincaid

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 26, 1986No. C 83-05-32440; CA A34510PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawful racketeering activity in violation of ORS 166.720(3), a section of the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (ORICO). ORS 166.720(3) provides, as relevant:

“It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity * * *.”

A “pattern of racketeering activity” means “engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct” under circumstances defined in ORS 166.715(3). “Racketeering activity” is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1948
  2. State v. SandersOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. ShadleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  4. State v. TracyOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  5. State v. RomigCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. BellUtah Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. CharlesworthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. Antoine v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  4. State v. FairCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  5. State v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

11 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