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 1990–2026 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. Thompsongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 270-71 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (an immediate curative instruction cured the erroneous admission of evidence where there was nothing to overcome the presumption that jurors follow a court’s instructions). 2026See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 270-71 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (an immediate curative instruction cured the erroneous admission of evidence where there was nothing to overcome the presumption that jurors follow a court’s instructions). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodallgreen1 sentence2020See Osorno, 264 Or App at 751-52 (whether prosecutorial misconduct was inadvertent “is simply not relevant to the question whether the prosecutor’s actions affected defendant’s right to a fair trial”). *416 with the defendant’s family, because the events did not involve misconduct or a constitutional violation that could not be cured with an instruction, the trial court reasonably assessed the prejudicial effect, and the jury is assumed to have followed the court’s curative instruction); Woodall, 259 Or App at 76 (affirming denial of a mistrial motion based on improper testimony that the defen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Osornogreen1 sentence2020See Osorno, 264 Or App at 751-52 (whether prosecutorial misconduct was inadvertent “is simply not relevant to the question whether the prosecutor’s actions affected defendant’s right to a fair trial”). *416 with the defendant’s family, because the events did not involve misconduct or a constitutional violation that could not be cured with an instruction, the trial court reasonably assessed the prejudicial effect, and the jury is assumed to have followed the court’s curative instruction); Woodall, 259 Or App at 76 (affirming denial of a mistrial motion based on improper testimony that the defen | 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. Milbradt
green
2 sentences2016As the Supreme Court held in Milbradt , even an immediate curative instruction by the trial court may not be effective to ensure that the jury would not be improperly influenced by vouching testimony if the instruction does not expressly tell the jury to ‘disregard totally’ the testimony. 305 Or at 630 . 2008As the Supreme Court held in Milbradt , even an immediate curative instruction by the trial court may not be effective to ensure that the jury would not be improperly influenced by vouching testimony if the instruction does not expressly tell the jury to “disregard totally” the testimony. 305 Or at 630 . | 2 | 2008–2016 |
Thompson v. Oregon
green
1 sentence2026See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 270-71 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (an immediate curative instruction cured the erroneous admission of evidence where there was nothing to overcome the presumption that jurors follow a court’s instructions). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Leland
green
2 sentences1990We, therefore, agree with counsel for the defendant that it was improper." State v. Leland, 190 Or. 598, 623 , 227 P.2d 785 (1951), aff'd sub nom Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). [12] In addition to the immediate curative instruction set forth in the part of the transcript quoted above, the court later instructed the jury several times to disregard evidence to which the court had sustained objections or which it had ordered stricken. 1990We, therefore, agree with counsel for the defendant that it was improper." State v. Leland, 190 Or. 598, 623 , 227 P.2d 785 (1951), aff'd sub nom Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). [12] In addition to the immediate curative instruction set forth in the part of the transcript quoted above, the court later instructed the jury several times to disregard evidence to which the court had sustained objections or which it had ordered stricken. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1990We, therefore, agree with counsel for the defendant that it was improper." State v. Leland, 190 Or. 598, 623 , 227 P.2d 785 (1951), aff'd sub nom Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). [12] In addition to the immediate curative instruction set forth in the part of the transcript quoted above, the court later instructed the jury several times to disregard evidence to which the court had sustained objections or which it had ordered stricken. 1990We, therefore, agree with counsel for the defendant that it was improper." State v. Leland, 190 Or. 598, 623 , 227 P.2d 785 (1951), aff'd sub nom Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). [12] In addition to the immediate curative instruction set forth in the part of the transcript quoted above, the court later instructed the jury several times to disregard evidence to which the court had sustained objections or which it had ordered stricken. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.