State v. Moore

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that the analyses for lesser included offenses and for merger are the same
• observing that the analyses for lesser included offenses and for merger are the same
• noting that “sexual abuse requires touching for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party,” whereas “[t]he offense of sodomy * * * does not require proof of arousal or gratification of the sexual desire of either party”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Rodvelt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-04-03· cited 24×
• State v. Garrett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-11-27· cited 8×
• State v. Carlton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-01-08· cited 5×
• State v. Burgert
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-05-31· cited 2×

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Spring
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-02-21· cited 13×
• State v. Dilts
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1977-02-08· cited 11×