green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
11.3 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2014–2017 ·
…a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Cone
a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Henderson-Laird
a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Cervantes
a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Marquez-Vela
a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Reineke
a defendant's own inquiry on direct examination into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Arena-Easton
See State v. Miranda, 309 Or 121, 128 , 786 P2d 155 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990) (“A defendant’s own inquiry on direct examina- tion into the contents of otherwise inadmissible statements opens the door to further inquiry on cross-examination relating to those same statements.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1311 (12th ed 2024) (defining “opening the door” as “[a]n attorney’s conduct or questions that render otherwise inad- missible evidence or objectionable questions admissible”).
cited
Cited "see"
Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist.
See State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 158 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990) (illustrating that problem).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Washington
See State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 156-58 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, Oregon v. Wagner, 498 US 879 (1990) (trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering that defendant be restrained at trial by leg cuffs joined by a chain, because affidavits and a signed statement attested that defendant had threatened witnesses and had engaged in violent conduct toward other persons before his arrest).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Washington
See State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 156-58 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, Oregon v. Wagner, 498 US 879 (1990) (trial court did not abuse dis- cretion in ordering that defendant be restrained at trial by leg cuffs joined by a chain, because affidavits and a signed statement attested that defendant had threatened witnesses and had engaged in violent conduct toward other persons before his arrest).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Acremant
See State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 164 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990) (denial of motion for mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Delgado v. Souders
See State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 183 , 786 P2d 161 (1990), cert den 498 US 879 (1990) (no separate statutory definition required when statutory phrase at issue identifies prohibited conduct); see also Hoffman Estates, 455 US at 498 (setting out “person of ordinary intelligence” standard).
cited
Cited "see"
Kenneth Kersey v. Tennessee Board of Paroles Charles Traughber Gayle Barbee Ansel McDuffy Bob Gower Randall Chester
See Parton v. Armontrout, 895 F.2d 1214, 1215-16 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Grimes
See ORS 133.555(1), (2).’” State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 144-45 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den 498 US 879 (1990) (quoting State v. Villagren, 294 Or 404, 408 , 657 P2d 1223 (1983)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Townsend
See Gregory v. North Carolina, 900 F.2d 705 , 707 n. 6 (4th Cir.) (incompetency equals unavailability under rule 804 of the Federal Evidence Code), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 211 , 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990); United States v. Dorian, 803 F.2d 1439 (8th Cir.1986) (witness who testified but was too young and frightened to be subjected to meaningful direct examination was unavailable for all practical purposes); Ellison v. Sachs, 769 F.2d 955 , 957 n. 4 (4th Cir.1985) (victim, although present, was unavailable because she was declared incompetent given her young age); Haggins v. Warden, 7…
discussed
Cited "see"
Fillmore v. Ordonez
See D.T. by M.T. v. Independent School District No. 16, 894 F.2d 1176 , 1187 (10th Cir.) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 , 96 S.Ct. 598, 604 , 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 213 , 112 L.Ed.2d 172 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert Patrick Powell v. Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent, Washington State Reformatory
(2×)
See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.) (where the petitioner was denied the retroactive benefit of a new rule while others similarly situated were afforded the retroactive benefit, the petitioner’s equal protection rights were violated), ce rt. denied, 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 212 , 112 L.Ed.2d 172 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Curry
Compare Massey, 40 Or App at 214 , with Reger, 277 Or App at 91-92 (where the court con- cluded that a category was sufficiently particular when the “warrant did not provide police with carte blanche to begin ‘rummaging’ through [the] defendant’s home for anything but those kinds of evidence in connection to specific charges” (emphasis added)).14 13 State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), does not aid the state’s argument.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Curry
Compare Massey, 40 Or App at 214 , with Reger, 277 Or App at 91-92 (where the court con- cluded that a category was sufficiently particular when the “warrant did not provide police with carte blanche to begin ‘rummaging’ through [the] defendant’s home for anything but those kinds of evidence in connection to specific charges” (emphasis added)).14 13 State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990), does not aid the state’s argument.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wright
If so, we cannot imagine that the accused has any just ground of complaint with regard to it." Id. at 264 , 88 P. 306 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Farrar , 309 Or. 132 , 158, 786 P.2d 161 , cert. den. , 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 212 , 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990) ("Defendant acknowledges that he removed the juror thereafter from the jury panel through his use of a peremptory challenge.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McAnulty
To the contrary, in assessing future dangerousness, this court has held that “threat to society” as used in the statute contemplates “the threat to all of society, no matter whether the universe of that society be great or small.” State v. Douglas, 310 Or 438, 450 , 800 P2d 288 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 175-76 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den, 498 US 879 (1990) (noting that future dangerousness applies to everyone).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Merrell
Compare Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F3d 734, 747-49 (9th Cir 1995), cert den 517 US 1158 (1996) (court must pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints) with, e.g., State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 158 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den 498 US 879 (1990) (applying immediate and serious risk of danger or disruption or escape test without reference to less restrictive alternatives).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Barone
All that the constitution, all that the law, requires and demands is a trial “by an impartial jury.” ’ ” Id. at 264 (quoting Loggins v. State, 12 Tex App 65, 85 (1882)); see also State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132, 158 , 786 P2d 161 , cert den 498 US 879 (1990) (where defendant did not object to jurors who ultimately heard case, court need not decide whether a challenge for cause to a juror who later was excluded by peremptory challenge should have been allowed). 5 In a long exchange that preceded Hutcheson’s testimony, defendant argued that Hutcheson’s testimony would be inadmissible und…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peyton v. United States
See People v. Whitfield, 58 Mich.App. 585 , 228 N.W.2d 475, 477 (1975) (citing cases). “[W]e cannot say that this one utterance [regarding a witness’ polygraph examination] caused a miscarriage of justice which would necessitate a reversal of the conviction.” Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632, 636 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3226 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976); see also State v. Farrar, 309 Or. 132 , 786 P.2d 161, 182(Or.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 212 , 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990) (“[t]he reference did not warrant a mistrial because it was isolated and made onl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Guzek
(2×)
See also State v. Wagner, 309 Or 5, 18 , 786 P2d 93 (“[t]here is no burden of proof on the fourth question because it does not present an issue subject to proof in the traditional sense, rather, it frames a discretionary determination for the jury”), cert den 498 US 879 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Guritz
State v. Oland, 1 Or App 272, 279 , 461 P2d 277 (1969), rev den (1970); see also State v. Miranda, 309 Or 121, 128 , 786 P2d 155 , cert den 498 US 879 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jimmie Wayne Jeffers v. Samuel Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent, Arizona State Prison
(2×)
See also Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 , 111 S.Ct. 212 , 112 L.Ed.2d 172 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Employment Division
See, e.g., Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 397 , 788 P2d 435 , cert den 498 US 879 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mississippi Employment Security Commission
v.
McGlothin
v.
McGlothin
No. 89-1726.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1990.
498 U.S. 879
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (5)
Sup. Ct. Miss. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.