Value of property
Amended by HB 4128
Effective since March 2, 2022
Relating to zoonotic disease; creating new provisions; amending ORS 164.115, 496.992 and 497.308; and declaring an emergency.
Source:
Section 164.115 — Value of property, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors164.html.
Notes of Decisions
Invoice price of goods shipped to defendant’s home and not paid for was sufficient to establish prima facie market value of the property, which could be rebutted by defendant. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Where property is stolen from wholesaler, price at which wholesaler offers to sell it ordinarily reflects its market value. State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence was insufficient to prove that damages in stripping bark from chittamwood trees exceeded $200 where only testimony as to damage came from property owner, his first statement was that it looked like “about $1,000 worth of damage” and he testified at trial that he could not put monetary value on the trees but sold the bark from damaged trees for $284. State v. Washburn, 53 Or App 258, 631 P2d 827 (1981), as modified by 54 Or App 64, 633 P2d 1321 (1981)
“Market value” presumes that both buyer and seller have accurate information. State v. Pierce, 153 Or App 569, 962 P2d 35 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
For property to have “market value,” there must be actual market in which property has value in trade as demonstrated by existence of both willing buyer and willing seller. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Deford, 177 Or App 555, 34 P3d 673 (2001)
Tags and price code information showing price at which goods were offered for retail sale are direct evidence of market value, not out-of-court assertion of value. State v. Pulver, 194 Or App 423, 95 P3d 250 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
To prove value of stolen property through evidence of cost of replacement property, state must prove that stolen property and replacement property are of equal effectiveness or have same utility. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. H.S., 237 Or App 385, 239 P3d 999 (2010)
Evidence that marketplace for property exists but is unreliable is sufficient for trier of fact to conclude that market value of stolen items cannot reasonably be ascertained and that replacement value of stolen items may be used. State v. Mays, 294 Or App 229, 429 P3d 1061 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date