Remedies for violation of ORS 166.720
- time limitation
Source:
Section 166.725 — Remedies for violation of ORS 166.720; time limitation, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Reference to “rights of innocent persons” does not relate to victims of racketeering, but to persons having interest in assets obtained through or used in racketeering and who were not participants in illegal actions. State ex rel Reid v. Frohnmayer, 93 Or App 444, 763 P2d 733 (1988)
Injured persons’ “superior” right or claim to forfeited property or proceeds does not require that Attorney General give injured persons preference over recovery of state costs when distributing proceeds from state’s ORICO action. State ex rel Reid v. Frohnmayer, 93 Or App 444, 763 P2d 733 (1988)
Where investors in limited partnership interests brought federal securities suit against investment counselor and companies for which he was an officer or agent under federal and Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and investment companies’ and its employees alleged acts of securities violation did not meet pattern of racketeering activity required under RICO statutes, claims were dismissed. Pincetich v. Jeanfreau, 699 F Supp 1469 (D. Or. 1988)
Where plaintiffs made no allegations about when or whether they participated in gambling activities of defendant, and refused to plead further, plaintiffs’ complaints did not allege facts to show personal damage caused by defendant’s illegal activity as required by paragraph (7)(a) of this section and thus complaints failed to claim. Riddle v. Eugene Lodge No. 357, 95 Or App 206, 768 P2d 917 (1989)
Damages are suffered “by reason of” violation of ORS 166.720 only if loss was proximately caused by violation. Ainslie v. First Interstate Bank, 148 Or App 162, 939 P2d 125 (1997)
1995 amendments requiring criminal conviction prior to bringing of civil recovery action do not apply to causes of action accruing prior to effective date of 1995 amendments. Black v. Arizala, 182 Or App 16, 48 P3d 843 (2002), aff’d 337 Or 250, 95 P3d 1109 (2004)
Person may pursue cause of action for damages where activity relates to burglary, criminal trespass or other referenced activities regardless of whether underlying activity is also classifiable as conduct that requires proof of prior conviction. Cruze v. Hudler, 246 Or App 649, 267 P3d 176 (2011), modified 248 Or App 180, 274 P3d 858 (2012)
Law Review Citations
69 OLR 169 (1990)