green
Positive treatment
Trending · 97 recent citers
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kropf
See State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (summarily rejecting the defendant’s federal pro- portionality challenge for the same reasons as his state con- stitutional claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hurtado
See State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (explaining that an analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, provides a suf- ficient basis to decide whether the defendant’s sentence was disproportionate and cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment); see also Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or at 58-60 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. O'Malley Bros. Corp.
See Belknap v. U. S. Bank National Association, 235 Or App 658, 672 , 234 P3d 1041 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (court erred in awarding fees under ORS 652.200(2) when one of that provision’s disqualifying conditions was met).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rogers
See State v. Hardesty, 238 Or App 146, 151 , 241 P3d 741 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (where “[b]oth parties proceeded under a common understanding of the statutory requirements, [which] may or may not have been correct,” the appellant defendant could not “now complain that the trial court erred because it failed to view the statute differently than presented by the parties”); Cervantes, 232 Or App at 577-78 (noting that neither Miller v. Water Wonderland Improvement District, 326 Or 306 , 951 P2d 720 (1998), nor Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72 , 948 P2d 722 (1997), “abrogate[s] a cen…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Newsted
See State v. Tropeano, 238 Or App 16, 19-20 , 241 P3d 1184 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (the defendant’s prior conviction for possession of child pornography and status as a registered sex offender helped support probable cause to search hotel room for child pornography).
discussed
Cited "see"
Foster Group, Inc. v. City of Elgin
See State v. Hardesty, 238 Or App 146, 151 , 241 P3d 741 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (concluding that, where “[b]oth parties proceeded under a common understanding of the statutory requirements” in the trial court, the defendant could not complain on appeal “that the trial court erred because it failed to view the statute differently than presented by the parties”); State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 302 , 280 P3d 994 , rev den, 352 Or 565 (2012) (invoking the “invited error” principle where the defendant, in seeking a motion for judgment of acquittal before the trial court, �…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ashbaugh
See State v. Alexander, 238 Or App 597, 599 , 243 P3d 476 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Beck
See State v. Harmon, 239 Or App 587, 592 , 244 P3d 910 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that, to prove a combined alcohol-controlled substance DUII, the state must adduce “additional evidence of causation beyond the evidence of his admissions and impairment []”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Waterson
When a court is evaluating the proportionality of a sentence applied in a specific case, the court considers at least three factors: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the 158 State v. Waterson penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the crim- inal history of the defendant.” Id.; see also State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (explaining that an analysis of the three fac- tors under Article I, section 16, provides a sufficient basis to decide whether the defendant…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Tuter
We concluded that “an essential characteristic of DUII diversion is that a defendant is required by a governmental actor to participate in a rehabilitation program in order to avoid a substantial adverse consequence.” Id. at 157 ; see also State v. Bentley, 239 Or App 18, 24 , 243 P3d 859 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (holding that a defendant is ineligible for a DUII diversion program if the defendant had previously participated in a drug and alcohol treatment program as a condition of probation and would have faced substantial adverse consequences as a result of noncompliance with t…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nelson
See, e.g., State v. Rainoldi, 236 Or App 129, 141-47 , 235 P3d 710 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 654 (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BOHANNON
v.
MILLS.
v.
MILLS.
S058993.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Feb 17, 2011.
Published
Petition for Review Denied.