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 1 courts 2007–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Frankegreen2 sentences2026See Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 323 , 350 P3d 188 (2015) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under Article 1, section 11 only when he demonstrates that counsel’s deficient performance “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694 , 104 S Ct 2052 , 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under the Sixth Amendment only when he demonstrates a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”). 2026See Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 323 , 350 P3d 188 (2015) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under Article 1, section 11 only when he demonstrates that counsel’s deficient performance “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694 , 104 S Ct 2052 , 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under the Sixth Amendment only when he demonstrates a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”). | 4 | 5 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026See Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 323 , 350 P3d 188 (2015) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under Article 1, section 11 only when he demonstrates that counsel’s deficient performance “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694 , 104 S Ct 2052 , 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under the Sixth Amendment only when he demonstrates a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”). 2026See Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 323 , 350 P3d 188 (2015) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under Article 1, section 11 only when he demonstrates that counsel’s deficient performance “could have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 694 , 104 S Ct 2052 , 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984) (A petitioner establishes prejudice under the Sixth Amendment only when he demonstrates a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”). | 4 | 4 |
Richardson v. Bellequegreen2 sentences2024In a case in which the petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate a trial strategy, *242 the test for prejudice under Article 1, section 11, is whether “there is more than a mere possibility” that counsel’s failure to investigate “could have tended to affect the outcome[.]” Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236 , 266, 406 P3d 1074 (2017). “[T]he assessment involves a sequential inquiry into whether there was more than a mere possibility that an adequate investigation would have yielded information that could have been used at the [trial or hearing] in a way that gave ri 2024In a case in which the petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate a trial strategy, *242 the test for prejudice under Article 1, section 11, is whether “there is more than a mere possibility” that counsel’s failure to investigate “could have tended to affect the outcome[.]” Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236 , 266, 406 P3d 1074 (2017). “[T]he assessment involves a sequential inquiry into whether there was more than a mere possibility that an adequate investigation would have yielded information that could have been used at the [trial or hearing] in a way that gave ri | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Monfore v. Persson
neutral
2 sentences2024In a case in which the petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate a trial strategy, *242 the test for prejudice under Article 1, section 11, is whether “there is more than a mere possibility” that counsel’s failure to investigate “could have tended to affect the outcome[.]” Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236 , 266, 406 P3d 1074 (2017). “[T]he assessment involves a sequential inquiry into whether there was more than a mere possibility that an adequate investigation would have yielded information that could have been used at the [trial or hearing] in a way that gave ri 2024In a case in which the petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate a trial strategy, *242 the test for prejudice under Article 1, section 11, is whether “there is more than a mere possibility” that counsel’s failure to investigate “could have tended to affect the outcome[.]” Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236 , 266, 406 P3d 1074 (2017). “[T]he assessment involves a sequential inquiry into whether there was more than a mere possibility that an adequate investigation would have yielded information that could have been used at the [trial or hearing] in a way that gave ri | 2 | 2020–2024 |
Maxfield v. Nooth
green
1 sentence2022Maxfield I, 278 Or App at 688 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Montez v. Czerniak
green
1 sentence2015Having so concluded that there was prejudice under Article I, section 11, we “do not consider [petitioner’s] claims under the Sixth Amendment.” Montez, 355 Or at 7 n 3. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chew v. State
green
1 sentence2007Under the federal constitution, the question is whether “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Chew, 121 Or App at 477 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lichau v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences2007In order to demonstrate prejudice under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness had a “tendency to affect the result of the prosecution * * Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or 350, 359 , 39 P3d 851 (2002) (emphasis in original). 2007In order to demonstrate prejudice under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness had a “tendency to affect the result of the prosecution * * Lichau v. Baldwin, 333 Or 350, 359 , 39 P3d 851 (2002) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.