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 1994–2023 3 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. Parra-Sanchezgreen2 sentences2023However, as we ultimately conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, we need not consider the supplemental assignment of error. *39 or salacious—not simply nudity in the context of ordinary, daily activities such as showering or dressing.” Id. at 721. 2023However, as we ultimately conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, we need not consider the supplemental assignment of error. *39 or salacious—not simply nudity in the context of ordinary, daily activities such as showering or dressing.” Id. at 721. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gaulgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Gaul, 301 Or App 142, 145 , 455 P3d 1016 1 The victim eventually received a portion of the money owed from defendant and his wife. 574 State v. Elder (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020) (“For restitution purposes, the defendant’s criminal activity must be the reasonably foreseeable but for cause of the victim’s losses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 2021See State v. Gaul, 301 Or App 142, 145 , 455 P3d 1016 1 The victim eventually received a portion of the money owed from defendant and his wife. 574 State v. Elder (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020) (“For restitution purposes, the defendant’s criminal activity must be the reasonably foreseeable but for cause of the victim’s losses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. D. J. M.green1 sentence2021See State v. Gaul, 301 Or App 142, 145 , 455 P3d 1016 1 The victim eventually received a portion of the money owed from defendant and his wife. 574 State v. Elder (2019), rev den, 366 Or 292 (2020) (“For restitution purposes, the defendant’s criminal activity must be the reasonably foreseeable but for cause of the victim’s losses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estelle v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2020The state argues that an erroneous jury instruction amounts to a federal constitutional violation only if there is “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 US 62, 72 , 112 S Ct 475 , 116 L Ed 2d 385 (1991) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 US 370, 380 , 110 S Ct 1190 , 108 L Ed 2d 316 (1990)). 2020The state argues that an erroneous jury instruction amounts to a federal constitutional violation only if there is “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 US 62, 72 , 112 S Ct 475 , 116 L Ed 2d 385 (1991) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 US 370, 380 , 110 S Ct 1190 , 108 L Ed 2d 316 (1990)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Boyde v. California
green
2 sentences2020The state argues that an erroneous jury instruction amounts to a federal constitutional violation only if there is “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 US 62, 72 , 112 S Ct 475 , 116 L Ed 2d 385 (1991) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 US 370, 380 , 110 S Ct 1190 , 108 L Ed 2d 316 (1990)). 2020The state argues that an erroneous jury instruction amounts to a federal constitutional violation only if there is “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 US 62, 72 , 112 S Ct 475 , 116 L Ed 2d 385 (1991) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 US 370, 380 , 110 S Ct 1190 , 108 L Ed 2d 316 (1990)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kelsey
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Kelsey, 124 Or App 446 , 863 P2d 475 (1993), we declined to exercise our discretion to review an unpreserved claim of error as to special conditions of probation. 1994In State v. Kelsey, 124 Or App 446 , 863 P2d 475 (1993), we declined to exercise our discretion to review an unpreserved claim of error as to special conditions of probation. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.