State v. Page

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Wilson

    333 Or. App. 581 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    State v. Page, 330 Or.App. 672, 676, 544 P.3d 421 (2024).

  2. State v. A.E.A. (In re A.E.A.)

    332 Or. App. 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g., Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc., 351 Or. 1, 7-8, 261 P.3d 1215 (2011) (discussing cause in fact and the 'substantial factor' test)." State v. Page, 330 Or.App. 672, 676, 544 P.3d 421 (2024).

  3. State v. Mattila

    337 Or. App. 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2025)

    " State v. Page, 330 Or.App. 672, 674, 544 P.3d 421 (2024) (citing State v. Lobue, 304 Or.App. 13, 16, 466 P.3d 83, rev den, 367 Or. 257 (2020)).

  4. State v. Dominguez-Jurado

    337 Or. App. 120 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    There is certainly room for the trial court, which had photographs of the two kinds of siding side-by-side, to find that somewhere between "quite noticeable to the homeowner" and "not glaringly obvious" to someone driving past the house, there was a need for the siding to match as part of making the homeowner whole. See State v. Page, 330 Or.App. 672, 677-78, 544 P.3d 421 (2024) ("[T]he house ended up with fresh paint on two sides and older paint on the other two sides-which predictably made the sides appear mismatched[] and *** the mismatched appearance of the house reasonably led to [the victim's] decision to repaint the undamaged walls to restore the house to its uniform and tidy look."). Importantly, the trial court noted that the existing siding was old and would have to be replaced by the homeowner anyway.

  5. State v. Brown

    333 Or. App. 297 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    The victim's use of her vacation time would not have been incurred in the absence of defendant's criminal conduct. See State v. Page, 330 Or.App. 672, 677, 544 P.3d 421 (2024) (holding that the trial court properly awarded restitution for the cost of repainting an entire house instead of just the two damaged walls when the expense of repainting and matching all of the exterior walls would not have happened in the absence of defendant's crime). As the state also points out, to the extent that renting a car may have allowed the victim to mitigate some of her economic loss, it was defendant who bore the burden to prove that failure to mitigate.