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 1918–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Whitegreen2 sentences1918In United States v. White, 17 Fed. 561, 565 ( 9 Sawy. 125 ), Judge Sawyer says: “Although statutes of limitation do not run against the government, yet the staleness of the claim may be taken into consideration in determining the question whether a court of equity should interfere and grant relief when the United States, as well as a natural person is a complainant. 1918In United States v. White, 17 Fed. 561, 565 ( 9 Sawy. 125 ), Judge Sawyer says: “Although statutes of limitation do not run against the government, yet the staleness of the claim may be taken into consideration in determining the question whether a court of equity should interfere and grant relief when the United States, as well as a natural person is a complainant. | 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. Van Osdol
green
2 sentences2026“Staleness is an important factor when considering probable cause, because probable cause must exist at the time the order is issued.” State v. Van Osdol, 290 Or App 902, 909 , 417 P3d 488 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026“Staleness is an important factor when considering probable cause, because probable cause must exist at the time the order is issued.” State v. Van Osdol, 290 Or App 902, 909 , 417 P3d 488 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ulizzi
green
2 sentences2011Indeed, as defense counsel implicitly acknowledged at the suppression hearing, see 246 Or.App. at 436 , 266 P.3d at 142 , the issuing magistrate "could reasonably conclude" that the heat lamp "might be there" ( viz., at defendant's residence). 2011Indeed, as defense counsel implicitly acknowledged at the suppression hearing, see 246 Or.App. at 436 , 266 P.3d at 142 , the issuing magistrate "could reasonably conclude" that the heat lamp "might be there" ( viz., at defendant's residence). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hyde
green
2 sentences1952When the United States comes into a court of equity as a suitor, it is subject to the defenses peculiar to that court.” United States v. White, 17 P 561 , 565, quoted with approval in State v. Hyde, supra, 88 Or 1, 40 , 169 P 757 , 171 P 582 . 1952When the United States comes into a court of equity as a suitor, it is subject to the defenses peculiar to that court.” United States v. White, 17 P 561 , 565, quoted with approval in State v. Hyde, supra, 88 Or 1, 40 , 169 P 757 , 171 P 582 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.