green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.3 score
“we have not identified any statute establishing an exclusionary remedy for a violation of the statutes relating to subpoenas of witnesses.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Summers
we have not identified any statute establishing an exclusionary remedy for a violation of the statutes relating to subpoenas of witnesses.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Marshall
Accord State v. Baker/ Jay, 232 Or App 112, 128 , 221 P3d 749 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 280 (2010) (applying a reasonable person standard to limitations on the scope of consent and explaining that “[o]nce the facts have been determined, the scope of consent is a question of law”); see also Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487-88 , 443 P2d 261 (1968) (“[W]e are not bound by a trial judge or jury’s finding of voluntariness if we believe the historical facts upon which such finding is based are insufficient to meet constitutional standards.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. West
See State v. Bergin, 231 Or App 36 , 217 P3d 1087 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 280 (2010); State v. Norman, 203 Or App 1 , 125 P3d 15 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 308 (2006) (admission of certificates of accuracy of Intoxilyzer machine without oral testimony of the technicians who prepared them did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, because the certificates were more akin to hearsay statements that were not considered testimonial in nature at common law, and there was no evidence in the record that the technicians were functioning as the proxy of the police investigation c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McDermott v. SAIF Corp.
See generally Reed Dickerson, The Interpretation and Application of Statutes, 23 (1975) (citing expressio unius as an example of‘maxims [that] masquerade as rules of interpretation while doing nothing more than describing results reached by other means’).” (Brackets in Colby); see also MEC Oregon Racing, Inc. v. Oregon Racing Comm., 233 Or App 9, 20 , 225 P3d 61 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 280 (2010) (a rule of permissible negative inference “gives way to other, more direct, and contrary evidence of legislative intent”); State ex rel City of Powers, 201 Or App at 234 (the maxim is to be …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
v.
A.L.M.
v.
A.L.M.
S058342.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Apr 29, 2010.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Petition for review denied.