as-applied proportionality challenge (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

as-applied proportionality challenge in Oregon

6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Rodriguez/Buckgreen
or · 2009 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025
2 sentences

2025The state also argues that “with respect to defendant’s first-degree-sexual-abuse argument, contacting an anus with a penis is qualitatively more severe than touching with a hand, or at least the legislature could ratio- nally so conclude.” “An as-applied proportionality analysis that consid- ers the facts of an individual defendant’s specific criminal conduct is particularly significant when the criminal statute at issue covers a broad range of activity, criminalizing a variety of forms and intensity of conduct.” Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or at 61 .

2025The state also argues that “with respect to defendant’s first-degree-sexual-abuse argument, contacting an anus with a penis is qualitatively more severe than touching with a hand, or at least the legislature could ratio- nally so conclude.” “An as-applied proportionality analysis that consid- ers the facts of an individual defendant’s specific criminal conduct is particularly significant when the criminal statute at issue covers a broad range of activity, criminalizing a variety of forms and intensity of conduct.” Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or at 61 .

25

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Roper v. Simmons green
scotus · 2005
2 sentences

2018Additionally, citing the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile), and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of a true-life sentence on a juvenile), and our opinion in State v. Wilson , 243 Or.

2018Additionally, citing the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile), and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of a true-life sentence on a juvenile), and our opinion in State v. Wilson , 243 Or.

12018–2018
Miller v. Alabama green
scotus · 2012
2 sentences

2018Additionally, citing the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile), and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of a true-life sentence on a juvenile), and our opinion in State v. Wilson , 243 Or.

2018Additionally, citing the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile), and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of a true-life sentence on a juvenile), and our opinion in State v. Wilson , 243 Or.

12018–2018
State v. Wilson green
orctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2018Additionally, citing the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile), and Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of a true-life sentence on a juvenile), and our opinion in State v. Wilson , 243 Or.

12018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.305 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.427 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.405 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OR 6 (2018–2025) IN 2 (2014–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check