State v. Doris (1908)
green
· 88 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 6 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1908 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
190819672026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Marques Deon Hardiman v. State of Indiana (2023)
Mayes, 744 N.E.2d at 393 (citing Oregon v. Doris, 51 Or. 136 , 94 P. 44, 53 (Or.1908); South Carolina v. Leaks, 103 S.E. 549, 551 (S.C. 1920); West Virginia v. Foley, 35 S.E.2d 854, 861 (W.Va. 1945)). [33] Accordingly, our Supreme Court in Mayes concluded that “because a defendant is committing a crime at the time he is allegedly defending himself is not sufficient standing alone to deprive the defendant of the defense of self- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-29…
green
State v. Matson (1927)
That this is proper cross-examination is abundantly established by State v. Ogden, 39 Or. 195 ( 65 Pac. 449 ); State v. Doris, *672 51 Or. 136, 160 ( 94 Pac. 44 , 16 L.
green
State v. Rader (1919)
Rep. 1015 ); State v. Remington, 50 Or. 99, 110 ( 91 Pac. 473 ); State v. Doris, 51 Or. 136, 157, 165 ( 94 Pac. 44 , 16 L.
green
State v. Goodager (1910)
As an illustration of a convenient manner of disclosing the purpose of rejected interrogatories, see State v. Doris, 51 Or. 136, 156 ( 94 Pac. 44 : 16 L.
green
Mayes v. State (2001)
See, e.g., Oregon v. Doris, 51 Or. 136 , 94 P. 44, 53 (1908) ("[T]o hold that the mere fact that a person accused of a homicide was armed at the time, and that because of the misdemeanor resulting therefrom [possession of a concealed weapon] he shall be deprived of any right of self-defense, would lead to the absurd and unjust consequence in practically all cases of depriving the accused of any defense. . . ."); South Carolina v. Leaks, 114 S.C. 257 , 103 S.E. 549, 551 (1920…
green
State of Tennessee v. Tyshon Booker (2020)
See Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 392 (Ind. 2001) (citing Oregon v. Doris, 51 Or. 136 , 94 P. 44, 53 (1908) (“[T]o hold that the mere fact that a person accused of a homicide was armed at the time, and that because of the misdemeanor resulting therefrom [possession of a concealed weapon] he shall be deprived of any right of self-defense, would lead to the absurd and unjust consequence in practically all cases of depriving the accused of any defense....”); South Carolina v.…