Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 4 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (explaining that an error is harmless for state constitutional purposes if there is little likelihood that erroneously admitted evidence affected the verdict). *610 extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id. at 684. 2025See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (explaining that an error is harmless for state constitutional purposes if there is little likelihood that erroneously admitted evidence affected the verdict). *610 extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Id. at 684. | 2 | 2 |
Montez v. Czerniakgreen2 sentences2023The state and federal standards are “functionally equivalent.” Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 355 Or 598 , 330 P3d 595 (2014). 2023The state and federal standards are “functionally equivalent.” Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 355 Or 598 , 330 P3d 595 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2007See State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 266-67 , 666 P2d 1316 (1983) (“[A]n Oregon court should not readily let parties, simply by their choice of issues, force the court into a position to decide that the state’s government has fallen below a nationwide constitutional standard, when in fact the state’s law, when properly invoked, meets or exceeds that standard.”). 2007See State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 266-67 , 666 P2d 1316 (1983) (“[A]n Oregon court should not readily let parties, simply by their choice of issues, force the court into a position to decide that the state’s government has fallen below a nationwide constitutional standard, when in fact the state’s law, when properly invoked, meets or exceeds that standard.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Upton
green
2 sentences2023The court must determine, first, whether the state has proved the existence of any aggravating or enhancing factors and, second, “whether the factors so proved provide a substantial and compelling reason that justifies imposing a sentence beyond the presumptive range.” State v. Upton, 339 Or 673, 679 , 125 P3d 713 (2005); see ORS 137.671(1) (2015) (“The court may impose a sentence outside the presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive under ORS 137.669 for a specific offense if it finds there are 1 Petitioner makes his arguments under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitut 2023The court must determine, first, whether the state has proved the existence of any aggravating or enhancing factors and, second, “whether the factors so proved provide a substantial and compelling reason that justifies imposing a sentence beyond the presumptive range.” State v. Upton, 339 Or 673, 679 , 125 P3d 713 (2005); see ORS 137.671(1) (2015) (“The court may impose a sentence outside the presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive under ORS 137.669 for a specific offense if it finds there are 1 Petitioner makes his arguments under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitut | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Montez v. Czerniak
green
2 sentences2023The state and federal standards are “functionally equivalent.” Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 355 Or 598 , 330 P3d 595 (2014). 2023The state and federal standards are “functionally equivalent.” Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 6-7 , 322 P3d 487 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 355 Or 598 , 330 P3d 595 (2014). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Vazquez-Escobar
green
2 sentences2016State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 211 Or App 115, 117 , 153 P3d 168 , rev den, 343 Or 224 (2007). 2016State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 211 Or App 115, 117 , 153 P3d 168 , rev den, 343 Or 224 (2007). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lichau v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2014Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or 350, 358-59 , 39 P3d 851 (2002). 2014Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or 350, 358-59 , 39 P3d 851 (2002). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Sparklin
green
2 sentences2013Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 94-95 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802-03 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)). 2013Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 94-95 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802-03 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Newton
yellow
2 sentences2013Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 94-95 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802-03 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)). 2013Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 94-95 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (quoting State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 802-03 , 636 P2d 393 (1981)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2003The admission of hearsay under an exception to the hearsay rule does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation under Article I, section 11, if the state demonstrates that the declarant is unavailable and the evidence has “adequate indicia of reliability.” State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 333-34 , 49 P3d 785 (2002) (providing overview of state and federal constitutional standards and setting out two-part test). 2003The admission of hearsay under an exception to the hearsay rule does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation under Article I, section 11, if the state demonstrates that the declarant is unavailable and the evidence has “adequate indicia of reliability.” State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 333-34 , 49 P3d 785 (2002) (providing overview of state and federal constitutional standards and setting out two-part test). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Custis v. United States
green
2 sentences1995The state relies primarily on Custis v. United States, 511 US_, 114 S Ct 1732 , 128 L Ed 2d 517 (1994). 1995The state relies primarily on Custis v. United States, 511 US_, 114 S Ct 1732 , 128 L Ed 2d 517 (1994). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.
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.