green
Positive treatment
13.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Pouncey v. Fhuere
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 294-97 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (rejecting a similar theory of “structural error”).
cited
Cited "see"
Pouncey v. Fhuere
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 294-97 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (rejecting a similar theory of “structural error”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. T. C.
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 295-97 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (discussing why “structural error” is not a useful analytical tool and adhering to the harmless error standard articulated in Davis); State v. Barone, 329 Or 210, 226 , 986 P2d 5 (1999), cert den, 528 US 1086 (2000) 2 Indeed, the majority opinion’s interpretation of the statutory requirement for personal prehearing notice as an unwaivable right that cannot be remedied by, for example, an appellant requesting additional time to prepare for the hear- ing is inconsistent with how we have treated the simil…
discussed
Cited "see"
Farmer v. Premo
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 290 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (rejecting as incompatible with Oregon law the petitioner’s contention that “trial counsel’s errors, taken together, were so egregious that he should be granted a new trial without” being required to show actual prejudice, “because the entire underlying trial was infected with ‘structural error.’”); id. at 298-99 (explaining that, although “structural error”—error in which prejudice is presumed—-is a viable theory under federal law in some circumstances, the United States Supreme Court h…
discussed
Cited "see"
Picard v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)
“Willful blindness,” on the other hand, involves two elements: “(1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2060, 2070 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1167 (2011) (emphasis added). 15 If a person who is not under an independent duty to investigate “nonetheless, intentionally chooses to blind himself to the ‘red flags’ that suggest a high probability of fraud, his ‘willful blindness’ to the truth …
discussed
Cited "see"
Koller v. Schmaing
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 295 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (“[Structural error is a doctrine that originated in federal criminal cases and * * * has not been adopted by this court as an aspect of Oregon law[.]”); State v. Arreola, 250 Or App 496, 501 , 281 P3d 634 (2012) (“Oregon courts do not recognize structural error, so the erroneous admission of a medical diagnosis does not necessarily require reversal in every case.”); State v. Wilson, 216 Or App 226, 232 , 173 P3d 150 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 391 (2008), adh’d to as modified on recons, 228 Or App 365 , …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Arreola
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 295 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (“[Structural error is a doctrine that originated in federal criminal cases and * * * has not been adopted by this court as an aspect of Oregon law[.]”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wilson
See Ryan v. Palmateer, 338 Or 278, 295 , 108 P3d 1127 , cert den, 546 US 874 (2005) (“[Structural error is a doctrine that originated in federal criminal cases and * * * has not been adopted by this court as an aspect of Oregon law[.]”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aguilar v. State
Compare Ryan v. Palmateer , 338 Or. 278 , 295-97, 108 P.3d 1127 , cert. den. , 546 U.S. 874 , 126 S.Ct. 384 , 163 L.Ed.2d 169 (2005) (rejecting structural error and presumed prejudice doctrines) with United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648 , 659-60, 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 657 (1984) (presuming prejudice where a defense counsel failed to function in any meaningful sense).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Superior Protection, Inc.
v.
National Labor Relations Board
v.
National Labor Relations Board
No. 05-123.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.