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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2026 7 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. Wiesegreen2 sentences2026When a court is evaluating the proportionality of a sentence applied in a specific case, the court considers at least three factors: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” Id.; see also State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (explaining that an analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, provides a sufficient basis to decide whether the defendant’s sentence was disproportiona 2026When a court is evaluating the proportionality of a sentence applied in a specific case, the court considers at least three factors: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” Id.; see also State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (explaining that an analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, provides a sufficient basis to decide whether the defendant’s sentence was disproportiona | 5 | 5 |
State v. Rodriguez/Buckgreen2 sentences2025We consider three factors in determining whether a sentence is proportional: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/ Buck, 347 Or 46, 58-60 , 217 P3d 659 (2009) (analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, also provides a sufficient basis to decide whether a defendant’s sentence was disproportionate and cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution). 1 The speedy trial anal 2025We consider three factors in determining whether a sentence is proportional: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/ Buck, 347 Or 46, 58-60 , 217 P3d 659 (2009) (analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, also provides a sufficient basis to decide whether a defendant’s sentence was disproportionate and cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution). 1 The speedy trial anal | 2 | 4 |
State v. McCombsgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 565 (rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument, where he relied “on the same argument that he presented under Article I, section 16, with which we disagreed when applying the Rodriguez/Buck factors”); State v. Wiese, 238 Or App 426, 429-30 , 241 P3d 1210 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) (citing Rodriguez/Buck for the proposition that “analysis of the three factors under Article I, section 16, provide[s] a sufficient basis to decide whether defendant’s sentence was * * * cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2010See 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). 2010See 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). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Oregongreen1 sentence2010See 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). | 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. Krieger
green
2 sentences2025Krieger, 306 Or App at 77 . 2025Krieger, 306 Or App at 77 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
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.