Oregon Supreme Court· 12/9/1981

State v. Dillon

Citations

637 P.2d 602
292 Or. 172
1981 Ore. LEXIS 1179

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that “res- titution was clearly not intended to be the equivalent of a civil award” and emphasizing that the statute’s purpose was penal rather than compensatory
applying that analysis to an award of restitution under ORS 137.103 and 137.106
examining the legislative history of the restitution statute and concluding that “restitution is a sen- tencing device authorized instead of, or in addition to, incar- ceration”
examining the legislative history of the restitution statute and concluding that “restitution is a sen- tencing device authorized instead of, or in addition to, incar- ceration”
allowing 5 restitution for damage to the sheriff’s car that defendant hit with his own car because such damage “is an item of damages for which defendant could have been civilly liable under any recognized formulation of tort law”
the defendant could be required to pay costs of police apprehension of him, including damage to police vehicle caused by police gunfire

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Denecke, Tongue, Lent, Linde, Peterson, Tanzer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

84 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.