State v. Mullen

How courts have described this case

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

• “In determining whether defendant’s conduct involved ‘two or more victims’ under ORS 161.067(2) we look to the substantive statute that defines the crime.”
• “[T]he victims of identity theft include persons who suffer a risk of loss from the exposure of their identification.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Torres
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-05-02· cited 15×
• State v. Ritter
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-08-17· cited 11×
• State v. Haddon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-06-14· cited 7×
• State v. Nix
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-08-01· cited 6×
• Jones v. State of Oregon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-10-26· cited 4×
• State v. Horton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-04-04· cited 2×
• In re the Marriage of Matar
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-10-26· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Gaines
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-04-30· cited 1,741×
• State v. Sumerlin
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-03-20· cited 44×
• State v. Glaspey
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-11-18· cited 43×
• State v. Hamilton
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2010-06-10· cited 22×
• State v. Moncada
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-03-02· cited 11×
• State v. Crook County
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-05-11· cited 10×
• State v. Alvarez-Amador
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-06-02· cited 10×
• State v. Porter
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-03-09· cited 8×