Kessler v. BELLEQUE, 231 P.3d 795 (Or. 2010). · Go Syfert
Kessler v. BELLEQUE, 231 P.3d 795 (Or. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a petition for reconsideration is not a proper method for making an argument for the first time.”
71 citation events (71 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Us Bank, NA v. Eckert (orctapp, 2014-12-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Us Bank, NA v. Eckert
Or. Ct. App. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a petition for reconsideration is not a proper method for making an argument for the first time.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Antoine v. Taylor
Or. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Molver, 233 Or App 239 , 225 P3d 136 , rev den, 348 Or 291 (2010); State v. Magana, 212 Or App 553, 565 , 159 P3d 1163 , rev den, 343 Or 363 (2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Mansor
Washington Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Court concluded that, in contrast to historical observations that a search of a person’s pockets was far less intrusive than a search of a residence, “a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form— unless the phone is.” Id. at _, 134 S Ct at 2491 ; see also State v. Bellar, 231 Or App 80, 103-04 , 217 P3d 1094 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 2…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KESSLER
v.
BELLEQUE.
S058256.
Oregon Supreme Court.
May 13, 2010.
231 P.3d 795

Petition for Review Denied.