Oregon Supreme Court· 3/5/1998

State v. Fair

Citations

953 P.2d 383
326 Or. 485
1998 Ore. LEXIS 26

How courts have described this case

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

racketeering indictment sufficient although it did not set out with particularity the nexus among the predicate offenses
stating and relying on rule; indictment for racketeering sufficient although did not set out specific nexus between predicate offenses
stating and relying on rule; indictment for racke- teering sufficient although did not set out specific nexus between predicate offenses
“Generally, an indictment is suf- ficient to serve those functions and to withstand a demur- rer if it tracks the pertinent wording of the statute defin- ing the crime.”
in the context of a demurrer, rejecting the defen- dant’s argument which, “[a]t its core,” was that “the charged crime is complex, making the indictment difficult to defend against”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Graber, Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 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.