How cited: Hanzo v. dePARRIE · Go Syfert

Hanzo v. dePARRIE (1998)

green · 145 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199820122026
yellow J. S. v. Hudgins (2023)
But See · Or. Ct. App. · signal: but see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122, 142 , 142 n 11, 46 P3d 729 (2002) (declining to analyze Article I, section 8, overbreadth challenge to ORS 30.866 based on the respondent’s concession that Rangel disposed of that claim, respondent’s failure to raise different arguments from Rangel, and the fact that the civil and criminal statutes contained some identical elements, but also noting that the two statutes differ in several respects); but see Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525…
applying Court of Appeals’ different narrowing construction of the criminal stalking statute set out in State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571 , 934 P2d 1128 (1997), aff’d, 328 Or 294 , 977 P2d 279 (1999
green D. O. v. Richey (2019)
Rule Authority · Or. Ct. App.
That magazine had editorialized that “the use of godly force is morally justified in defense of innocent life.” Id. at 527 (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green Wayt v. Goff (1998)
Rule Authority · Or. Ct. App.
Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App at 525, 542, 953 P2d 1130 (1998).
green Webb v. Lovette (2007)
Cited · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525 , 527 n 1, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), rev den, 328 Or 418 (1999). 2 We reject without discussion respondent’s argument that, on de novo review, we should determine that petitioners were “not credible.”
green Putzier v. Moos (2004)
Cited (see also) · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
If the contact involves expression protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, it must amount to a threat that “instills in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, is unequivocal, and is objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts.” State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 303 , 977 Or 379 (1999) (stating standard for criminal stalking); see also Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525, 542 , 953 P2d 1130 (1998), rev den, 3…
Cited · D. Or. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Hanzo, 152 Or.App. at 540 , 953 P.2d 1130 .
green Hanzo v. dePARRIE (1998)
Cited · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See 152 Or.App. at 533-34 , 953 P.2d at 1134 .
green Habrat v. Milligan (2006)
Cited (see also) · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see also
See State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 300 , 977 P2d 379 (1999); see also Hanzo, 152 Or App at 542 .
green Castro v. Heinzman (2004)
Cited (see also) · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see also
See State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 300 , 977 P2d 379 (1999); see also Hanzo, 152 Or App at 542 .
green Pinkham v. Brubaker (2001)
Cited (see also) · Or. Ct. App. · signal: see also
See State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294, 300 , 977 P2d 379 (1999); see also Hanzo, 152 Or App at 542 .