State v. Thompson (1999)
green
· 316 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 48 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199920122026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. Clapper (2007)
See Goodman, 328 Or at 328 (“Facts derived from training and experience may contribute that necessary factual nexus in a determination of probable cause.”).
“Facts derived from training and experience may contribute that necessary factual nexus in a determination of probable cause.”
green
State v. Smith (2025)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879, 885 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. Smith (2025)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879, 885 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
Johnson v. McLay (2025)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 271 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”).
“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”
green
Johnson v. McLay (2025)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 271 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”).
“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”
green
State v. C. P. (2023)
M., 364 Or 37, 40 , 430 P3d 1021 (2018) (“We review the juvenile court’s legal conclusions for errors of law[.]”); see also State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpre- tation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”). 518 State v. C.
“A trial court’s interpre- tation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
Rider v. Carranza (2020)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 266 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”); see also SAIF v. Herron, 114 Or App 64, 66-72 , 836 P2d 131 , rev den, 315 Or 271 (1992) (applying statutory con- struction analysis to determine the meaning of an applica- bility clause).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
Dement Ranch v. Curry County Board of Commissioners (2020)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”); Drake v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins.
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
Timmermann v. Herman (2018)
See State v. Thompson , 328 Or. 248 , 256, 971 P.2d 879 , cert. den. , 527 U.S. 1042 , 119 S.Ct. 2407 , 144 L.Ed.2d 805 (1999) ("A trial court's interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.").
"A trial court's interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error."
green
State v. Berger (2017)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. Anderson (2016)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. J. L. S. (2015)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
Dowell v. Oregon Mutual Insurance (2015)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”). 3 In this case, the parties do not dispute that the medical services obtained by plaintiff were reasonable and necessary, and they do not dispute the underlying facts.
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. Paniagua-Montes (2014)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. Voits (2003)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 271 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”).
“Jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions.”
green
State v. Conn (2024)
See, e.g., State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 581-82 , 1 Defendant signed a plea agreement that included a statement that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation, and the trial court accepted his no contest plea after finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary. 234 State v. Conn 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motions to withdraw because the record did not sho…
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel where the complaints amounted to “general frustration with the pre- trial process”
green
State v. Conn (2024)
See, e.g., State v. Davis, 345 Or 551, 581-82 , 1 Defendant signed a plea agreement that included a statement that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation, and the trial court accepted his no contest plea after finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary. 234 State v. Conn 201 P3d 185 (2008), cert den, 558 US 873 (2009) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motions to withdraw because the record did not sho…
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel where the complaints amounted to “general frustration with the pre- trial process”
green
State v. Bernhardt (2016)
Thompson, 328 Or at 256 (“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
“A trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”
green
State v. Dewhitt (2016)
The state points out that in State v. Norkeveck, 214 Or App 553, 560 , 168 P3d 265 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 558 (2008), we stated that “[w]hether joinder of offenses for trial is allowable under ORS 132.560 is a matter of discretion, and we review for abuse of discretion” — a statement that is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s controlling statement of the standard of review in Thompson, 328 Or at 257 (“[W]e review a trial court’s determination that the state met the statu…
“[W]e review a trial court’s determination that the state met the statutory requirements for joinder of charges for legal error.”
green
Clinton Physical Therapy Services, P.c. Vs. John Deere Health Care, Inc. And John Deere Health Plan, Inc., F/… (2006)
Ed. 2d 583 (2005); accord State v. Harris, 983 P.2d 881, 884 (Mont. 1999); State v. Thompson, 971 P.2d 879, 891 (Or. 1999).
See Redmond v. Socha, 216 Ill.2d 622 , 297 Ill.Dec. 432 , 837 N.E.2d 883, 895 (2005) (“[WJhether two verdicts are legally inconsistent is a question of law.”); State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 325 (Minn.) (“The question of whether verdicts are legally inconsistent is a question of law .... ” (Citation omitted.)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 745 , 163 L.Ed.2d 583 (2005); accord State v. Harris, 294 Mont. 397 , 983 P.2d 881, 884 (1999); State v. Thompson, 328 Or. 248 , 97…
green
1064 Old River Road, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (2005)
See State v. Howell, No. 1679, 1991 WL 87289 , at *3 (Ohio Ct.App.1991) (“[A] law enforcement officer is a member of the public and, just like any citizen, may accept a general public invitation to enter upon commercial premises which are open to the public.”); see also State v. Thompson, 328 Or. 248 , 971 P.2d 879 , 888 n. 8 (1999) (noting that the phrase “open to the public” means, under a state statute, “premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, no…
green
State v. Luers (2007)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 257 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (so explaining in the context of the previous version of the statute); State v. Parker, 119 Or App 105, 109 , 849 P2d 1157 , rev den, 317 Or 584 (1993) (noting that the possibility of prejudice exists in every situation where charges or defendants are joined in a trial).
so explaining in the context of the previous version of the statute
green
State v. Taylor (2002)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 266 , 971 P2d 879 (1999) (instructional error is not reversible error “ ‘unless the appellate court can fairly say the instruction probably created an erroneous impression of law in the minds of the jurymen which affected the outcome of the case’ ”), quoting Waterway Terminals v. P.S.
instructional error is not reversible error “ ‘unless the appellate court can fairly say the instruction probably created an erroneous impression of law in the minds of the jurymen which affected the outcome of the case’ ”
green
State v. Bahr (2026)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 270-71 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (an immediate curative instruction cured the erroneous admission of evidence where there was nothing to overcome the presumption that jurors follow a court’s instructions).
an immediate curative instruction cured the erroneous admission of evidence where there was nothing to overcome the presumption that jurors follow a court’s instructions
green
State v. Parkerson (2023)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256-57 , 971 P2d 879 (1999) (trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error).
trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error
green
State v. Haley (2023)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error).
trial court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error
green
State v. Delaney (2021)
And the party objecting to joinder must make a case-specific argument for why joinder will create substantial prejudice; “[t]he mere assertion that evidence relating to some charges will influence the jury’s consideration of other charges is insufficient.” Luers, 211 Or App at 43 ; see also State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 257 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (rejecting merely con- clusory allegations that joinder involving multiple victims was prejudicial); State …
rejecting merely con- clusory allegations that joinder involving multiple victims was prejudicial
green
State v. Sperou (2019)
See, e.g. , Thompson , 328 Or. at 272 , 971 P.2d 879 (trial court abuses discretion in denying motion to strike prosecutor's statement if defendant was denied fair trial in light of statement); Smith , 310 Or. at 24 , 791 P.2d 836 (trial court abuses discretion in denying mistrial only if defendant was denied fair **137 trial in light of prosecutor's statement); see generally State v. Serrano , 355 Or. 172 , 194, 324 P.3d 1274 (2014) ("The regulation of jury argument is, gen…
green
Dillard v. Premo (2019)
See State v. Thompson , 328 Or. 248 , 257, 971 P.2d 879 , cert. den. , 527 U.S. 1042 , 119 S.Ct. 2407 , 144 L.Ed.2d 805 (1999) (reviewing a trial court's interpretation of the joinder statute for legal errors).
reviewing a trial court's interpretation of the joinder statute for legal errors
green
State v. Taylor (2019)
See State v. Thompson , 328 Or. 248 , 257, 971 P.2d 879 (1999) (whether the facts of a case satisfy the statutory test for joinder is a question of law for the court); State v. Fitzgerald , 267 Or. 266 , 273, 516 P.2d 1280 (1973) (although indictment alleged that joined offenses were part of the "same act or transaction," when it later became apparent that the evidence did not support the allegation that charges were part of the **376 same act or transaction, trial court was…
whether the facts of a case satisfy the statutory test for joinder is a question of law for the court
green
State v. Turnidge (2016)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (court refused to address state or federal constitutional arguments in part, because, “on review, defendant has failed to present any thorough and focused constitutional analysis”). 22 At trial, defendant argued that his request for counsel was unequivocal, obligating police to cease all questioning.
court refused to address state or federal constitutional arguments in part, because, “on review, defendant has failed to present any thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Crummett (2015)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256-57 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999).
green
State v. Stone (2015)
See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (explaining that court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”); State v. Kinkade, 247 Or App 595, 599 , 270 P3d 371 (2012) (declining to address Fourth Amendment claim where the defendant made “passing reference in his opening brief to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution” but did not develop a “sep…
explaining that court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Gensler (2014)
Id.; see also State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 257 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (the defendant failed to show prejudice when he failed to make arguments based on the facts of his case).
the defendant failed to show prejudice when he failed to make arguments based on the facts of his case
green
State v. Hamel-Spencer (2014)
See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (explaining that court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of a “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”).
explaining that court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of a “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Tidwell (2013)
Id.; see also State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 257 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (the defendant failed to show prejudice when he failed to make arguments based on the facts of his case).
the defendant failed to show prejudice when he failed to make arguments based on the facts of his case
green
State v. Moore/Coen (2010)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 271 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 , 119 S Ct 2407 , 144 L Ed 2d 805 (1999) (jurors are presumed to follow a *392 trial court’s instructions).
jurors are presumed to follow a *392 trial court’s instructions
green
State v. Wiese (2010)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (we do not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”); Rodriguez/Buck, *430 347 Or at 58-60 (analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, provide a sufficient basis to decide whether defendant’s sentence was disproportionate and cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution).
we do not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Pardee (2009)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (refusing to address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”).
refusing to address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Ohm (2008)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (refusing to address constitutional claims in the absence of any “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”). 3 Article I, section 12, provides, in part:
refusing to address constitutional claims in the absence of any “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
green
State v. Hendon (2008)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (rejecting federal constitutional argument that had not been developed in the trial court or on appeal).
rejecting federal constitutional argument that had not been developed in the trial court or on appeal
green
State v. Watters (2007)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (refusing to address claim absent a “thorough and focused” analysis). 6 Although defendants assign error to that particular “holding” by the trial court in their brief, it appears that defendants, more precisely, intended to assign error to the trial court’s denial of their motions for judgments of acquittal.
refusing to address claim absent a “thorough and focused” analysis
green
State v. Cox (2004)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (declining to reach undeveloped constitutional claims). 1 12 Given our disposition of defendant’s federal claim, we do not decide whether defendant may convert-what appears at bottom to be an unequal treatment claim against the state into a due process claim that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary.
declining to reach undeveloped constitutional claims
green
DeLong v. Yu Enterprises, Inc. (2002)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 271 , 971 P2d 879 (1999) (jurors are presumed to follow trial court’s instructions).
jurors are presumed to follow trial court’s instructions
green
State v. Vogh (2002)
See generally State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 , 273 n *596 18, 971 P2d 879 (1999); State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589, 593 , 963 P2d 65 (1998), rev’d on other grounds 331 Or 384 , 15 P3d 541 (2000).
green
State v. Lotches (2000)
See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 250 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den 527 US 1042 (1999) (stating principle).
stating principle