State v. Johnson, 454 P.2d 852 (Or. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Johnson, 454 P.2d 852 (Or. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Van Den Bron v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (orctapp, 1987-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Van Den Bron v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
Or. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pavlik v. Albertson’s Inc., 253 Or 370, 374-75 , 454 P2d 852 (1969).
cited Cited "see" Trout v. Umatilla County School District Uh3-Milton-Freewater
Or. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pavlick v. Albertson’s, Inc., 253 Or 370 , 454 P2d 852 (1969).
discussed Cited "see" Moreau v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Johnson, 253 Or. 416 , 454 P.2d 852 (1969) (per curiam); State v. Hollman, 251 Or. 416 , 446 P.2d 117, 119-20 (1968). 18 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Murno v. Richard's Food Center, Inc.
Or. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Pavlik v. Albertson’s, Inc., 253 Or 370 , 454 P2d 852 (1969) (lettuce leaf on which the plaintiff slipped and fell was “well marked”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hall v. State
Or. · 1980 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Pavlik v. Albertson’s, Inc., 253 Or 370, 374 , 454 P2d 852 (1969) (no evidence to indicate whether lettuce leaf had been on supermarket floor "a few seconds, or a few hours”); Cowden v. Early, 214 Or 384 , 327 P2d 1109 (1958) (no evidence to permit finding that hotel owner had any opportunity to learn of water on stairway landing).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM WALTER JOHNSON, Appellant
Oregon Supreme Court.
May 21, 1969.
454 P.2d 852
1969 Ore. LEXIS 465
Bernard Jolles, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were FranHin, Olsen, Bennett, Des Brisay & Jolles, Portland., Jacob B. Tamer, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
Cueiam, Perry, Sloan, Goodwin, Holman, Hammond.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
[*417] PEE CUEIAM.

This case is here to test the refusal of the trial court to suppress narcotic evidence seized in a hotel room occupied at the time by defendant. The question argued on appeal is entirely directed at the failure of the officers to conform to ORS 133.320. ①

This case is identical with State v. Hollman, 1968, 251 Or 416, 446 P2d 117, where we refused to consider on appeal an alleged violation of OES 133.320 because the issue was not presented to the trial court. In the instant case the statute was not called to the trial court’s attention, either by the motion to suppress or in the oral proceedings in support of the motion. The statute was not mentioned to the trial court at any time. In this respect the record here is more conclusive than in Hollman. In the latter case the complete record was not available. The issues presented to the trial court and those decided are entirely different than the sole contention on the appeal. “* * *

[S]ince the defendant did not ask the trial court to rule on that issue, [the statute] there is no ruling for this court to review on appeal.” State v. Hollman, supra, 251 Or 416, 446 P2d at p 120.

Affirmed.

①

“To make an arrest [without a warrant], as provided in ORS 133.310, the officer may break open any door or window as provided in ORS 133.290 and 133.300, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he is refused admittance.”