green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
17.6 score
“i think that i do need a lawyer. i do," is an unequivocal request because it "expressed unambiguously that wished to speak with a lawyer before talking to the detectives”
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Nathan Wilson
aw statistics regarding overall charges say nothing about charges brought against similarly situated defendants.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Brown
i think that i do need a lawyer. i do," is an unequivocal request because it "expressed unambiguously that wished to speak with a lawyer before talking to the detectives
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bush
See State v. Acremant , 338 Or. 302 , 321-22, 108 P.3d 1139 , cert. den. , 546 U.S. 864 , 126 S.Ct. 150 , 163 L.Ed.2d 148 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McAnulty
See State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 305 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (reciting facts from penalty-phase evidence where defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated murder); ORS 163.150(l)(a) (regarding procedures for penalty-phase proceedings).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Martinez
See State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 322 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (the defendant made an unequivocal request for counsel when he told detectives, “I think that I do need a lawyer.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Doyle
See State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 321-24 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (determining whether the defendant validly waived his right to counsel where the defendant claimed that the admission of his statements during his penalty trial violated his right against compelled self-incrimination and the right to counsel).
discussed
Cited "see"
STEWART EX REL. HILL v. Kralman
See State v. Acremant, 338 Or. 302 , 317 n. 12, 108 P.3d 1139 , cert. den., 546 U.S. 864 , 126 S.Ct. 150 , 163 L.Ed.2d 148 (2005). [4] That section provides: "A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area of land, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by an artificial condition on the land, if "(a) the condition "(i) is one which the possessor has created or maintains and "(ii) is, to his knowledge, likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to such trespassers and "(iii) is of such a na…
discussed
Cited "see"
STEWART EX REL. HILL v. Kralman
See State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302 , 317 n 12, 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005). 4 That section provides: “A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area of land, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by an artificial condition on the land, if “(a) the condition “(i) is one which the possessor has created or maintains and “(ii) is, to his knowledge, likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to such trespassers and “(iii) is of such a nature that he has reason to believ…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nichols
See id. at 603, 617 (defendant who stated, “I won’t answer any questions,” unequivocally invoked, when record suggested no language barrier or confusion on defendant’s part, or that reasonable officer would have understood defendant instead to be asking a question); McAnulty, 356 Or at 451-52,456 (defendant’s first two invocations—“I don’t want to talk anymore” and “I don’t want to talk no more”—unambiguously communicated her desire to no longer speak with detectives); see also State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 322 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (defendant�…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Swan
See, e.g., State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 321-22 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (demonstrating inquiry).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hayward v. Belleque
See also State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 311-15 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (citing Guzek III).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hunt
State v. Sawyer, 221 Or App 350, 354-55 , 190 P3d 409 (2008); see also State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 321 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (to be valid, a waiver of one’s previously asserted right to counsel must be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances”) (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dingle
v.
Dobson
v.
Dobson
No. 04-10655.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Sup. Ct. S. C. Certio-rari denied.