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 1 courts 2006–2026 1 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. Bolygreen2 sentences2026See State v. Boly, 210 Or App 132, 135 , 149 P3d 1237 (2006) (explaining the textual analysis “negative exceptions” rule, which provides that “when a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of an offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail”). 2026See State v. Boly, 210 Or App 132, 135 , 149 P3d 1237 (2006) (explaining the textual analysis “negative exceptions” rule, which provides that “when a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of an offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Vasquez-Rubiogreen2 sentences2019One such rule of textual analysis is the "negative exceptions" rule, which provides that, "when a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of an offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail." Boly , 210 Or. App. at 135 , 149 P.3d 1237 ; see also State v. Vasquez-Rubio , 323 Or. 275 , 278-79, 917 P.2d 494 (1996) (explaining the rule). 2019One such rule of textual analysis is the "negative exceptions" rule, which provides that, "when a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of an offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail." Boly , 210 Or. App. at 135 , 149 P.3d 1237 ; see also State v. Vasquez-Rubio , 323 Or. 275 , 278-79, 917 P.2d 494 (1996) (explaining the rule). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Boly, 210 Or App 132, 135 , 149 P3d 1237 (2006) (generally, where “a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of the offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail”); State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 278 , 917 P2d 494 (1996) (we discern legislative intent regarding whether a fact constitutes an affirmative defense by examining statutory text and context); see also State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 17 2015See State v. Boly, 210 Or App 132, 135 , 149 P3d 1237 (2006) (generally, where “a statutory provision is plainly set out as an exception that stands apart from the description of the elements of the offense, the state is not required to negate the exception; rather, the exception constitutes an affirmative defense, which the defendant must establish to prevail”); State v. Vasquez-Rubio, 323 Or 275, 278 , 917 P2d 494 (1996) (we discern legislative intent regarding whether a fact constitutes an affirmative defense by examining statutory text and context); see also State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 17 | 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. Stroup
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Stroup, 290 Or 185, 206 , 620 P2d 1359 (1980) (Linde, J., concurring) (due process “only permits assigning to the defendant the burden to show ‘affirmative defenses’ that are recognized as ‘mitigating circumstances,’ i.e., circumstances that to some specified degree ‘exculpate or mitigate’ conduct which otherwise includes all elements of the crime” (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197, 206-07 , 97 S Ct 2319 , 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977) (citation omitted)). 2015Cf. State v. Stroup, 290 Or 185, 206 , 620 P2d 1359 (1980) (Linde, J., concurring) (due process “only permits assigning to the defendant the burden to show ‘affirmative defenses’ that are recognized as ‘mitigating circumstances,’ i.e., circumstances that to some specified degree ‘exculpate or mitigate’ conduct which otherwise includes all elements of the crime” (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197, 206-07 , 97 S Ct 2319 , 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977) (citation omitted)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Patterson v. New York
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Stroup, 290 Or 185, 206 , 620 P2d 1359 (1980) (Linde, J., concurring) (due process “only permits assigning to the defendant the burden to show ‘affirmative defenses’ that are recognized as ‘mitigating circumstances,’ i.e., circumstances that to some specified degree ‘exculpate or mitigate’ conduct which otherwise includes all elements of the crime” (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197, 206-07 , 97 S Ct 2319 , 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977) (citation omitted)). 2015Cf. State v. Stroup, 290 Or 185, 206 , 620 P2d 1359 (1980) (Linde, J., concurring) (due process “only permits assigning to the defendant the burden to show ‘affirmative defenses’ that are recognized as ‘mitigating circumstances,’ i.e., circumstances that to some specified degree ‘exculpate or mitigate’ conduct which otherwise includes all elements of the crime” (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197, 206-07 , 97 S Ct 2319 , 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977) (citation omitted)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
red
1 sentence2006Id. at 278-80 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.