State v. Dilts

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the sexual-purpose requirement was included for sexual abuse only “so that an inadvertent touching would not constitute a crime” and that the statutory “definition of sexual contact * * * obviously includes the advertent touching involved in a rape or sodomy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cunningham v. Thompson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-02-05· cited 25×
• Bogle v. Armenakis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-01-17· cited 15×
• State v. Spring
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-02-21· cited 13×
• People v. Fox
  California Court of Appeal· 2001-10-30· cited 9×
• State v. Moore
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-11-27· cited 6×
• State v. Carlton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-01-08· cited 5×
• State v. Ketchum
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1983-12-07· cited 3×
• State v. Del Fox
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-09-25· cited 2×
• State v. Abraham
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1990-07-05

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• State v. Washington
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1975-12-26· cited 111×