violated rule in Oregon

5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Trenarygreen or · 1993 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See Davis, 295 Or at 236-37 (so describing the court’s practice for statutory violations); Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (same). 2025See Davis, 295 Or at 236-37 (so describing the court’s practice for statutory violations); Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (same).	3	3
State v. Davisgreen or · 1983 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See Davis, 295 Or at 236-37 (so describing the court’s practice for statutory violations); Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (same). 2025See Davis, 295 Or at 236-37 (so describing the court’s practice for statutory violations); Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (same).	3	3

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Bradsteen green orctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2021B., 196 Or App 634, 635 , 106 P3d 647 (2004), appellant argues that, *637 because she was held from October 11, 2018 to November 15, 2018, without a hearing, the trial court violated the requirement in ORS 427.245(1) to hold the hearing within seven judicial days.2 In A. E.	1	2021–2021
State v. Middleton green or · 1983 2 sentences 2009Defendant argues on appeal that, by admitting Sasser’s testimony and reports, the trial court violated the rule announced in State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 , 657 P2d 1215 (1983), because the court permitted Sasser to testify about defendant’s credibility. 2009Defendant argues on appeal that, by admitting Sasser’s testimony and reports, the trial court violated the rule announced in State v. Middleton, 294 Or 427, 438 , 657 P2d 1215 (1983), because the court permitted Sasser to testify about defendant’s credibility.	1	2009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.525 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.575 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.673 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.703 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.432 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.410 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 49 (1910–2025) MI 24 (1937–2024) TX 21 (1977–2019) FL 17 (1960–2026) PA 15 (1914–2020) OH 14 (1985–2026) IN 11 (1898–2019) IL 10 (1976–2025) NY 10 (1909–2019) UT 10 (1998–2026) TN 8 (1971–2017) AL 6 (1863–2000) VA 5 (1967–2026) MS 5 (1990–2003) AZ 5 (1967–2016) OR 5 (2009–2025) NC 5 (1915–2003) GA 5 (1982–2016) KY 4 (1941–2023) WA 4 (2008–2026) NH 4 (1984–2016) KS 3 (1914–2006) IA 3 (1978–2024) MO 3 (1949–1985) OK 3 (1968–1996) NM 3 (1969–1977) MD 2 (1998–2010) LA 2 (1976–1997) AK 2 (1966–1987) WY 2 (1986–2012) MT 2 (1984–1994) WV 2 (1997–2014) ID 2 (1991–2026) CO 2 (2016–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance