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.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 2 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. Mansorgreen2 sentences2026See United States v. Hunt, 153 F4th 858 , 865 (9th Cir 2025) (holding the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable expectation of privacy framework” requires adapting the abandonment doctrine in light of the “unique characteristics of cellphone data” and concluding that “the abandonment doctrine can apply to cellphone data but courts should analyze the physical phone and its data separately to determine whether the circumstances allow the conclusion that there was an intent to abandon either”); State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 217 , 421 P3d 323 (2018) (“We do not think that it is useful to conceive of a com 2026See United States v. Hunt, 153 F4th 858 , 865 (9th Cir 2025) (holding the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable expectation of privacy framework” requires adapting the abandonment doctrine in light of the “unique characteristics of cellphone data” and concluding that “the abandonment doctrine can apply to cellphone data but courts should analyze the physical phone and its data separately to determine whether the circumstances allow the conclusion that there was an intent to abandon either”); State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 217 , 421 P3d 323 (2018) (“We do not think that it is useful to conceive of a com | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2014Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc., 331 Or at 660 ; see Cook, 332 Or at 607 (“[T]he determination whether a defendant has relinquished a constitutionally protected interest in an article of property involves both factual and legal questions [.]”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence2014Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc., 331 Or at 660 ; see Cook, 332 Or at 607 (“[T]he determination whether a defendant has relinquished a constitutionally protected interest in an article of property involves both factual and legal questions [.]”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Human Services v. Rardin
neutral
1 sentence2006Id. at 607 n 3. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Sutton
neutral
2 sentences1978Defendant contends, in the alternative, that the "recorded statement" falls within the exception to the hearsay rule as a "record of past recollection" and says that in *1339 State v. Sutton, 253 Or. 24, 26-27 , 450 P.2d 748 (1969), this court removed the previous requirement of that exception to the effect that there must be an absence of a present recollection by a writer-witness as a "necessary pre-requisite." The abandonment of that requirement has been criticized because of possible abuses by use of statements prepared for purposes of litigation under the supervision of claim adjusters or 1978Defendant contends, in the alternative, that the "recorded statement" falls within the exception to the hearsay rule as a "record of past recollection" and says that in *1339 State v. Sutton, 253 Or. 24, 26-27 , 450 P.2d 748 (1969), this court removed the previous requirement of that exception to the effect that there must be an absence of a present recollection by a writer-witness as a "necessary pre-requisite." The abandonment of that requirement has been criticized because of possible abuses by use of statements prepared for purposes of litigation under the supervision of claim adjusters or | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.