green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
12.0 score
“a dictionary definition of ordinary meaning, however, is controlling only if there is no evidence from the statute or its relevant context that the legislature intended some other meaning to apply.”
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Bennett
a dictionary definition of ordinary meaning, however, is controlling only if there is no evidence from the statute or its relevant context that the legislature intended some other meaning to apply.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Raymond
t is irrelevant whether defendant's consent was obtained illegally because, as the state argues, in light of the other justification for the search, the consent was 'superfluous.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Stewart
we review the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. J. D. B.
See State v. Deloretto, 221 Or App 309, 321 , 189 P3d 1243 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 66 (2009) (“It is not legally permissible for a trial court to deny a new trial for a Brady violation if there is a ‘reasonable prob- ability’ that the suppressed evidence would have resulted in a different outcome[.]” (Quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 US 667, 682 , 105 S Ct 3375 , 87 L Ed 2d 481 (1985))); see Turner, 582 US at 324 (defining “a reasonable probability of a different result” as one in which “the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial” (citation an…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. J. D. B.
See State v. Deloretto, 221 Or App 309, 321 , 189 P3d 1243 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 66 (2009) (“It is not legally permissible for a trial court to deny a new trial for a Brady violation if there is a ‘reasonable prob- ability’ that the suppressed evidence would have resulted in a different outcome[.]” (Quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 US 667, 682 , 105 S Ct 3375 , 87 L Ed 2d 481 (1985))); see Turner, 582 US at 324 (defining “a reasonable probability of a different result” as one in which “the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial” (citation an…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Fox
In the 2007 amendment, ORS 162.005 changed from defining “public servant” in terms of what that phrase “includes” to defining “public servant” in terms of what that phrase “means.” Generally, the legislature intends something quite different when it says a particular statutory term “means” something as opposed to when it says that a term “includes” something. “‘Means’ is used in the definition if the definition restricts or limits the meaning of a word. ‘Includes’ is used if the definition extends the meaning.” Office of Legislative Counsel, Bill Drafting Ma…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McIntyre
See State v. Deloretto, 221 Or App 309, 314 , 189 P3d 1243 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 66 (2009) (explaining that “[t]he [Johns] inquiry is cumulative: if the answer to any of the first five inquiries is negative, then the evidence is not relevant”); State v. Rinkin, 141 Or App 355, 368 , 917 P2d 1035 (1996) (reasoning that the state “ha[s] the burden of demonstrating admissibility under the Johns test and that, “if any [of the Johns factors] is not met, the evidence must be excluded”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hutton
There is a sixth Johns question that comes into play if the first five are met: whether the probative value of the prior-act evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury, undue delay, or presentation of cumulative evidence. 301 Or at 556 ; see State v. Deloretto, 221 Or App 309, 314 , 189 P3d 1243 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 66 (2009) (“The inquiry is cumulative: if the answer to any of the first five inquiries is negative, then the evidence is not relevant and the court need not proceed to the balancing in the sixth inquiry, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stockton
See, e.g., State v. Deloretto, 221 Or App 309 , 189 P3d 1243 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 66 (2009) (addressing assign- ments of error that are likely to arise on remand despite reversing on different ground); Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (addressing ruling concerning availability of cer- tain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
MERRELL.
v.
MERRELL.
S056891.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Mar 4, 2009.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (3)
Petition for review denied.