green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.3 score
“he ultimate legal issue-whether the require- ments of oec 803(2) have been met and the hearsay statement is therefore admissible as an excited utterance-is a question of law as to which there is only one legally correct outcome.”
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Ghaffoori
he ultimate legal issue-whether the require- ments of oec 803(2) have been met and the hearsay statement is therefore admissible as an excited utterance-is a question of law as to which there is only one legally correct outcome.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Amoroso
See State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 536 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005); see State v. Mueller, 96 Or App 185 , 772 P2d 433 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Amoroso
See State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 536 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005); see State v. Mueller, 96 Or App 185 , 772 P2d 433 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Iseli
See State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 537 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005) (not- ing that standard for reviewing preliminary factual find- ings that bear on the admission of evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.
See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) (defining “find” as “[t]o determine a fact in dispute by verdict or decision”); Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed 1995) (explaining the distinction between a finding and a holding, and noting that “[a] court properly makes find- ings of fact and holdings or conclusions of law” (emphases in original)); see also State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 538 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005) (explaining that “the trial court finds the facts that underlie the application of OEC 803(2),” which is distinct from the…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Starr
See State v. Maiden, 222 Or App 9, 11 , 191 P3d 803 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (“On appeal from a judgment of conviction, we view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the state.”); see also State v. Cunningham, 179 Or App 359, 361 , 40 P3d 1065 , adh’d to on recons, 184 Or App 292 , 57 P3d 149 (2002), rev’d and rem’d on other grounds, 337 Or 528 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 , 125 S Ct 1670 , 161 L Ed 2d 495 (2005).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc.
See, e.g., State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 536 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005) (exclusion of evidence on relevance grounds reviewed for legal error).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Merida Delgado v. Gonzales
See, e.g., United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453, 457 (4th Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 1670 , 161 L.Ed.2d 496 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeen Young Han
v.
California
v.
California
04-8410.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 2005.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.