green
Positive treatment
Trending · 101 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…t is appropriate for a court to consider the testimony of mental health experts, the person's past acts, and the person's apparent condition at the time of the hearing.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. T. M. (In re T. M.)
(2×)
t is appropriate for a court to consider the testimony of mental health experts, the person's past acts, and the person's apparent condition at the time of the hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Insurance Company of The West v. Reno Quality Homes, Inc
Inc., 132 P.3d 28 1022, 1034 (Nev. 2006) (“[A]ttorney fees requested as an element of damages must be specially 2 claimed a right to collect attorney’s fees based upon a provision of the Indemnity Agreement.
discussed
Cited "see"
Madden Industrial v. Steel Buildings USA
“If it is necessary for the court to refer to evidence outside the pleadings to decide the motion, the court cannot decide the matter ‘on the pleadings,’ and the motion must be denied.” Thompson v. Telephone & Data Systems Inc., 130 Or App 302, 309 , 881 P2d 819 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 132 Or App 103 , 888 P2d 16 (1994); accord Kelly v. Olinger Travel Homes, Inc., 200 Or App 635, 641 , 117 P3d 282 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
See State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 466 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (holding that unpreserved instructional error was plain and exercising our discretion to correct it, in part because of the seriousness of the convictions); see also Gray, 261 Or App at 132 (concluding that gravity of the error compelled exercise of discretion to correct plain instruc- tional error, because the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to culpable mental state was not harmless, and the Cite as 327 Or App 592 (2023) 601 defendant’s challenged convictions included “serious felo- …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gore
See State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 466 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (exercising discretion to correct unpreserved instructional error because of the seriousness of the convictions).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gray
See State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 466 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (holding that unpreserved instructional error was plain and exercising our discretion to correct it, in part because of the seriousness of the convictions).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. D. R.
See State v. Lott, 202 Or App 329, 354 , 122 P3d 97 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (Edmonds, P. J., dissenting) (“The tension between the protection of personal liberties and the provision of medical help to persons with mental disorders can be relieved if courts strictly adhere to the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment and ensure that there is an evidentiary basis that satisfies each of those requirements.”); State v. Simon, 180 Or App 255, 263 , 42 P3d 374 (2002) (“Predicting future human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. DR
(2×)
See State v. Lott, 202 Or.App. 329, 354 , 122 P.3d 97 (2005), rev den, 340 Or. 308 , 132 P.3d 28 (2006) (Edmonds, P.J., dissenting) ("The tension between the protection of personal liberties and the provision of medical help to persons with mental disorders can be relieved if courts strictly adhere to the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment and ensure that there is an evidentiary basis that satisfies each of those requirements."); State v. Simon, 180 Or.App. 255, 263 , 42 P.3d 374 (2002) ("Predicting future human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor.").
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tabib
See State v. Torres, 201 Or App 275, 277-78, 118 P3d 268 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (an anonymous caller reported that a man had broken the front window of a neighbor’s house and climbed inside); State v. Frink, 42 Or App 171, 173 , 600 P2d 456 (1979) (an anonymous report that someone named “Tim” was “shooting up” a child named “Junior” with drugs at a specified address).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schiele v. Montes
Morris Electric v. Hyundai Semiconductor, 203 Or App 54, 63 , 125 P3d 87 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 140 (2006); see Kelly v. Olinger Travel Homes, Inc., 200 Or App 635, 641 , 117 P3d 282 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (‘When a motion has been styled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings [under ORCP 21 B] but the parties have introduced evidence outside the pleadings and the trial court has relied on that evidence in ruling on the motion, we have treated the motion as one for summary judgment or directed verdict.”). 2 Thus, consistently *48 with our prior practice, we treat defendants�…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Turner
See Cibula v. DMV, 202 Or App 551, 555-56 , 123 P3d 382 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (“The reasonable suspicion standard is intended to be less than the standard for probable cause.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pauley
See State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 462 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (“The risk of [jury] confusion in reaching such concurrence applies equally to any crime that is pleaded in multiple counts where a jury is inadequately instructed as to which factual theories and evidence apply to which counts.” (emphasis added)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Barber
See State v. Norman, 203 Or App 1 , 125 P3d 15 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (holding that admission of Intoxilyzer certification does not violate state or federal confrontation clauses).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Burdick
See State v. Torres, 201 Or App 275, 287 , 118 P3d 268 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 *584 (2006) (police officers are not required to eliminate all possible innocent explanations).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wright
As a consequence, concerns about any disregard for preservation are reduced. 7 Further, we have previously concluded that, where a defendant’s convictions reflect serious felonies, and an error was not harmless, “the gravity of the error compel [s] us to exercise our discretion to correct the error.” Id. at 750 (citing State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121, 129 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014)); see also State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 465-66 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (exercising discretion to correct plain error, in part, because convictions reflected serious felonies).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Campbell
See, e.g., State v. Pervish, 202 Or App 442, 467 , 123 P3d 285 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006); State v. Martin, 95 Or App 170, 175 , 769 P2d 203 (1989) (tampering under ORS 162.285(l)(b) requires proof that the inducement occurred after the witness had been served with a subpoena).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of Rudder and Rudder
See State of Oregon DCS v. Anderson, 189 Or App 162, 169 , 74 P3d 1149 , rev den, 336 Or 92 (2003) (considering commentary to Uniform Interstate Family Support Act as legislative history of the relevant Oregon counterpart); see also Kelly v. Olinger Travel Homes, Inc., 200 Or App 635 , 644 n 5, 117 P3d 282 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (“Although the Official Comments to the [Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)] lack the force of law, they are instructive, because the legislature took note of them at the time of adoption, they are consistent with the structure of the UCC, and the purpose of t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. J. H.
Compare State v. Rainbolt, 182 Or App 668, 674 , 50 P3d 1228 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 184 Or App 661, 662 , 57 P3d 902 (2002) (expressly assuming that the state hears the burden, of proof as to that inquiry), with State v. Lott, 202 Or App 329, 337 , 122 P3d 97 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (noting possible issue as to proper allocation of burden of persuasion but concluding that it was unnecessary to consider the correctness of the allocation of the burden of proof in Rainbolt because, “regardless of which party had the burden of proof on the matter, a preponderance of the e…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ruggles
It is not hearsay.” Weber, 172 Or App at 709 ; see also State v. Norman, 203 Or App 1, 6 , 125 P3d 15 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (certifications of Intoxilyzer calibrations are “evidence about the accuracy of a test result arrived at by a machine,” whose admission into evidence does not implicate the Confrontation Clause).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
GAMBOA.
v.
GAMBOA.
S53184.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Mar 21, 2006.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Petition for review denied.