State v. Durant

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that ORS 164.105(2) is a restatement of the generally accepted principle that one cannot steal property that one has a right to possess
• holding under Oregon’s larceny statute, which is based on New York’s larceny statute, that a partner cannot be charged with the theft of partnership property because Oregon adheres to the common-law rule that “partners cannot steal partnership property”
• \A defendant may not rely on facts extrinsic to the indictment to support his theory of invalidity.\
• “A defendant may not rely on facts extrinsic to the indictment to support his theory of invalidity.”
• “A defendant may not rely on facts extrinsic to the indictment to support his theory of invalidity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Cervantes
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-12-23· cited 19×
• State v. Morgan
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1997-12-24· cited 13×
• In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Renshaw
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2013-03-28· cited 9×
• State v. Dollar
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-05-08· cited 4×
• People v. Rosenfeld
  New York Supreme Court· 2007-07-10· cited 1×
• State v. Waters
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-09-16

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Zinke
  New York Court of Appeals· 1990-05-03· cited 40×
• State v. Kurtz
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-06-16· cited 26×
• Ramahi v. Hobart Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-08-04· cited 7×