State v. MacOmber

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that alterations a defendant made to a truck belonging to another was an “exercise of control” sufficient to satisfy ORS 164.135(1)(a)
• “[Ejxercise of control is not limited to a moving vehicle, for otherwise it would be largely synonymous with ‘operates’ or covered by ‘riding.’” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Civil
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-01-11· cited 127×
• State v. Eastep
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2017-08-10· cited 22×
• State v. Douthitt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1978-04-03· cited 14×
• People v. Boscaglia
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1984-11-19· cited 13×
• State v. Brust
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1988-12-14· cited 7×
• State v. MacOmber
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1974-07-22· cited 6×
• State v. Howell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-08-14· cited 6×
• State v. Eastep
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-04-20· cited 3×
• State v. Rexroad
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-03-23· cited 2×
• State v. Blair
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1981-10-12· cited 1×
• State v. McCarthy
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2026-04-23

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• State v. MacOmber
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1973-12-24· cited 8×