green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.7 score
“for instance, in johnson, what started out as mere conversation was converted into a stop when police requested that the defendant alter his course of travel to facilitate continued questioning after an initial inquiry did not furnish reasonable suspicion.”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Soto
for instance, in johnson, what started out as mere conversation was converted into a stop when police requested that the defendant alter his course of travel to facilitate continued questioning after an initial inquiry did not furnish reasonable suspicion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jones v. Douglas County
whether a statute applies prospectively or retroactively is a question of legislative intent, determined by applying the usual principles of statutory construction.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dayton v. Jordan
See id. (citing Weihl v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd, 204 Or App 255, 268-69 , 129 P3d 748 , rev den, 342 Or 254 (2006) (where trial court implicitly or explicitly rejects invitation to go beyond scope of pleadings at summary judgment stage, appellate court will not treat pleadings as implicitly amended to conform to the evidence)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fischer v. Walker
See Weihl v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd, 204 Or App 255, 268-69 , 129 P3d 748 , rev den, 342 Or 254 (2006) (where trial court implicitly or explicitly rejects invitation to go beyond scope of pleadings at summary judgment stage, appellate court will not treat pleadings as implicitly amended to conform to the evidence).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Oliver
See State v. Hathaway, 207 Or App 716, 717 , 143 P3d 545 , rev den, 342 Or 254 (2006) (noting that both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently exercised discretion to address plainly erroneous failures to merge convictions).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Foster
See also State v. Hathaway, 207 Or App 716, 717 , 143 P3d 545 , rev den, 342 Or 254 (2006) (noting that both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently exercised discretion to address plainly erroneous failures to merge convictions).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reynolds
Although defendant may not gain any benefit in the form of a decrease in his overall term of incarceration and post-prison supervision, we review his first assignment of error in order to protect that constitutional right.” 183 Or App at 33 ; see also State v. Hathaway, 207 Or App 716, 717-18 , 143 P3d 545 , rev den, 342 Or 254 (2006) (exercising discretion to correct merger error despite state’s argument that the additional convictions had no effect on the defendant’s term of imprisonment and noting that, “although the effects of merger are not always immediately apparent, they can be…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Haugen
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Saner, 342 Or 254 , 149 P3d 1213 (2006) (on own motion, vacating order denying review); Zimmerlee v. Baldwin, 330 Or 281 , 6 P3d 1100 (2000) (vacating on own motion denial of petition for review 14 months later); Ponder v. Baldwin, 330 Or 281 , 6 P3d 1100 (2000) (on own motion, granting reconsideration and withdrawing order denying review); Cooper v. Maass, 329 Or 10 , 994 P2d 119 (1999) (on own motion, reconsidering petition for review previously denied and withdrawing order denying review).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Saner
v.
Saner
S54192.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Dec 19, 2006.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Petition for review Vacated. The motion to withdraw and appoint substitute counsel is granted. Peter Gartlan of the Oregon Public Defense Services is appointed as counsel for the appellant, Rodney Luther Saner. On the court's own motion, the[*1214] order denying review, dated December 5, 2006, 342 Or. 117, 149 P.3d 139, is vacated. The motion for relief from default is granted. The motion for indefinite extension of time to file the petition for review is granted in part. Newly appointed counsel may file the petition for review within 30 days of this order. Defendant's previously filed pro se petition for review is construed to be a supplemental petition for review.