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 1997–2015 0 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. Georgegreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( 2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( | 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 Ex Rel. Gladden v. Lonergan
green
2 sentences2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). 2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. LeClair
green
2 sentences2015First, the state contends that, because defendant had a right under the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution to cross-examine the complainant regarding prior false accusations, regardless of OEC 608, citing State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121 , 730 P2d 609 (1986), rev den, 303 Or 74 (1987), the state was permitted to invite “the jury to draw a reasonable inference from his failure to do so.” We reject that argument, because the complainant in this case had not recanted a prior accusation, and we did not broadly hold in LeClair that a defendant may introduce any 2015First, the state contends that, because defendant had a right under the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution to cross-examine the complainant regarding prior false accusations, regardless of OEC 608, citing State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121 , 730 P2d 609 (1986), rev den, 303 Or 74 (1987), the state was permitted to invite “the jury to draw a reasonable inference from his failure to do so.” We reject that argument, because the complainant in this case had not recanted a prior accusation, and we did not broadly hold in LeClair that a defendant may introduce any | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Zinsli
green
1 sentence2015Zinsli, 156 Or App at 251 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Echeverria
green
2 sentences2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). 2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Crawley
green
2 sentences2015Both we and the Supreme Court long have interpreted ORS 136.420 (and its predecessors) 3 as a statutory confrontation right that is coextensive in scope with the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 4 See State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 838 , 838 n 10, 306 P3d 610 (2013); State v. Crawley, 242 Or 601, 603-06 , 410 P2d 1012 (1966); State ex rel. 2015Both we and the Supreme Court long have interpreted ORS 136.420 (and its predecessors) 3 as a statutory confrontation right that is coextensive in scope with the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 4 See State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 838 , 838 n 10, 306 P3d 610 (2013); State v. Crawley, 242 Or 601, 603-06 , 410 P2d 1012 (1966); State ex rel. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Walton
green
2 sentences2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). 2015Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163, 178-79 , 269 P2d 491 (1954); State v. Walton, 53 Or 557, 563-65 , 99 P 431 (1909); State v. Echeverria, 51 Or App 513, 517 , 626 P2d 897 , rev den, 291 Or 118 (1981). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Copeland
green
2 sentences2015Both we and the Supreme Court long have interpreted ORS 136.420 (and its predecessors) 3 as a statutory confrontation right that is coextensive in scope with the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 4 See State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 838 , 838 n 10, 306 P3d 610 (2013); State v. Crawley, 242 Or 601, 603-06 , 410 P2d 1012 (1966); State ex rel. 2015Both we and the Supreme Court long have interpreted ORS 136.420 (and its predecessors) 3 as a statutory confrontation right that is coextensive in scope with the confrontation clause of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. 4 See State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 838 , 838 n 10, 306 P3d 610 (2013); State v. Crawley, 242 Or 601, 603-06 , 410 P2d 1012 (1966); State ex rel. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( 2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bornhoft v. Aubry
neutral
2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( 2011See, e.g., State v. George, 146 Or App 449 , 453 n 2, 934 P2d 474 (1997) (“ ‘Unavailability under OEC 804 is not necessarily the same as under the confrontation clauses of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 623 , 853 P2d 256 (1993) (citing OEC 804(l)(e) definition of unavailability as support for its conclusion that the state’s efforts to obtain a declarant were satisfactory under Article I, section 11). 7 Cf. Bornhoft v. Aubry, 178 Or App 625, 630-31 , 37 P3d 1049 , rev den, 334 Or 260 ( | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence1997Stevens, 311 Or at 139 n 14. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.