State v. MacK

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the imposition of a “sex offender package” as a special condition of probation under ORS 137.540(2) requires such a showing
• remanding for resentencing for court to determine whether conditions supporting imposition of sex-offender package under ORS 137.540(2) were established
• if a defendant is convicted of a crime other than a sexual offense but acted with a sexual purpose, requiring sex offender treatment as a special condition of probation is reasonably related to the crime of conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Phillips
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-05-17· cited 15×
• State v. Borders
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-09-06· cited 15×
• State v. Johnston
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-09-05· cited 11×
• State v. Kilgore
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-01-09· cited 8×
• State v. Gaskill
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-05-16· cited 7×
• State v. Flores
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-02-02· cited 4×
• State v. Flicker
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-01-08· cited 3×
• State v. McCollister
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-12-20· cited 3×
• State v. Bourrie
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-11-13· cited 2×
• State v. Naylor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-04-09· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Martin
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1978-06-20· cited 56×
• State v. Jackson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-05-15· cited 7×
• State v. Saxon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-12-14· cited 7×
• State v. Estey
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-06-23· cited 3×