State v. Waterhouse

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the “value range” of third-degree theft “falls essentially between some value greater than zero but less than $100”
• explaining that the “value range” of third-degree theft “falls essentially between some value greater than zero but less than $100”
• when a crime is based on a de minimus value threshold, such as greater than zero, the valuation is “provable by inference”
• at minimum property must have “some value,” although exact worth immaterial
• to survive an MJOA, there must be evidence from which the factfinder “could reasonably infer that the [stolen item] possessed ‘some value,’ the minimum needed to define it as ‘property’ ” for purposes of third-degree theft

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Parra-Sanchez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-03-22· cited 13×
• State v. Stutte
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-03-19· cited 13×
• State v. Cazee
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-01-27· cited 12×
• State v. Davis
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2016-08-11· cited 10×
• State v. Slater
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-04-21· cited 9×
• State v. Jones
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-06-19· cited 5×
• State v. Santini
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-09-20· cited 2×
• State v. McClour
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-05-19· cited 1×
• State v. Waterhouse
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2016-05-05

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Walker
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2014-08-21· cited 81×
• State v. Rader
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2010-03-25· cited 24×
• State v. Whitley
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1983-08-02· cited 11×
• State v. Waterhouse
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-10-15· cited 2×