17 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 6 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. Cookgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 540 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (explaining that, in Crawford, the United State Supreme Court rejected the Confrontation Clause test that it had announced in Roberts, but that Oregon appellate courts continue to use the Roberts test to analyze confrontation claims under Article I, section 11). 2025See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 540 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (explaining that, in Crawford, the United State Supreme Court rejected the Confrontation Clause test that it had announced in Roberts, but that Oregon appellate courts continue to use the Roberts test to analyze confrontation claims under Article I, section 11). | 6 | 7 |
State v. Beldengreen2 sentences2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 | 1 | 5 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2021Harris, 362 Or at 64; see also State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 340-41 , 49 P3d 785 (2002) (reaffirm- ing the Roberts test for analysis under Article I, section 11, despite intervening shifts in the Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, after considering the provision’s text, its historical purposes, and prior case law interpreting it). 2021Harris, 362 Or at 64; see also State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 340-41 , 49 P3d 785 (2002) (reaffirm- ing the Roberts test for analysis under Article I, section 11, despite intervening shifts in the Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, after considering the provision’s text, its historical purposes, and prior case law interpreting it). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Copelandgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 540 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (so stating); see also Copeland, 353 Or at 839 (reaffirming Campbell). 14 Some courts have concluded that the forfeiture doctrine, like other hearsay exceptions, is self-validating as to reliability. 2014See State v. Cook, 340 Or 530, 540 , 135 P3d 260 (2006) (so stating); see also Copeland, 353 Or at 839 (reaffirming Campbell). 14 Some courts have concluded that the forfeiture doctrine, like other hearsay exceptions, is self-validating as to reliability. | 1 | 1 |
Lave v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2007See Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786, 790 (7th Cir 2005) (Crawford “assuredly (and explicitly) jettisoned the Roberts standard”); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F3d 333, 335 (5th Cir 2006) (“Because Crawford changed the test for the admissibility of certain out-of-court statements, it imposes new obligations on state and federal courts and qualifies as a new rule of criminal procedure.”); accord Crawford, 541 US at 75 (Rehnquist, C. 2007See Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786, 790 (7th Cir 2005) (Crawford “assuredly (and explicitly) jettisoned the Roberts standard”); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F3d 333, 335 (5th Cir 2006) (“Because Crawford changed the test for the admissibility of certain out-of-court statements, it imposes new obligations on state and federal courts and qualifies as a new rule of criminal procedure.”); accord Crawford, 541 US at 75 (Rehnquist, C. | 1 | 1 |
Edward A. Murillo v. Matthew J. Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2007See Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786, 790 (7th Cir 2005) (Crawford “assuredly (and explicitly) jettisoned the Roberts standard”); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F3d 333, 335 (5th Cir 2006) (“Because Crawford changed the test for the admissibility of certain out-of-court statements, it imposes new obligations on state and federal courts and qualifies as a new rule of criminal procedure.”); accord Crawford, 541 US at 75 (Rehnquist, C. 2007See Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786, 790 (7th Cir 2005) (Crawford “assuredly (and explicitly) jettisoned the Roberts standard”); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F3d 333, 335 (5th Cir 2006) (“Because Crawford changed the test for the admissibility of certain out-of-court statements, it imposes new obligations on state and federal courts and qualifies as a new rule of criminal procedure.”); accord Crawford, 541 US at 75 (Rehnquist, C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carahergreen2 sentences2006See State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 749 , 653 P2d 942 (1982) (‘[w]hen this court gives Oregon law an interpretation corresponding to a federal opinion, our decision remains the Oregon law even when federal doctrine later changes’).” Wilson, 323 Or at 514 n 10. 2006See State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 749 , 653 P2d 942 (1982) (‘[w]hen this court gives Oregon law an interpretation corresponding to a federal opinion, our decision remains the Oregon law even when federal doctrine later changes’).” Wilson, 323 Or at 514 n 10. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2006See State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 749 , 653 P2d 942 (1982) (‘[w]hen this court gives Oregon law an interpretation corresponding to a federal opinion, our decision remains the Oregon law even when federal doctrine later changes’).” Wilson, 323 Or at 514 n 10. 2006See State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 749 , 653 P2d 942 (1982) (‘[w]hen this court gives Oregon law an interpretation corresponding to a federal opinion, our decision remains the Oregon law even when federal doctrine later changes’).” Wilson, 323 Or at 514 n 10. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 | 3 | 7 |
State v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 2025Under that provision, an out-of- court statement made by a declarant who does not testify at trial is admissible only if (1) the declarant is “unavailable,” and (2) the statements have “adequate indicia of reliabil- ity.” State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 648 , 705 P2d 694 (1985) (adopting, on independent state grounds, the confrontation test initially articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 US 56 , 100 S Ct 2531 , 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980), overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 , 124 S Ct 1354 , 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004)); see also State v. Belden, 369 Or 1, 9-10 | 2 | 5 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Birchfield
green
2 sentences2021Only the first prong of the two-part test—“unavail- ability”—is at issue in this case.9 We explained in Harris that our prior cases addressing the “unavailability” exception to the Article I, section 11, confrontation right had “adhered to a demanding requirement of unavailability” that focused on “ ‘necessity as the justification for admitting hearsay against a criminal defendant, once confrontation became impossi- ble.’ ” 362 Or at 65 (quoting Moore, 334 Or at 339 , and State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 629-30 , 157 P3d 216 (2007)). 2021Only the first prong of the two-part test—“unavail- ability”—is at issue in this case.9 We explained in Harris that our prior cases addressing the “unavailability” exception to the Article I, section 11, confrontation right had “adhered to a demanding requirement of unavailability” that focused on “ ‘necessity as the justification for admitting hearsay against a criminal defendant, once confrontation became impossi- ble.’ ” 362 Or at 65 (quoting Moore, 334 Or at 339 , and State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 629-30 , 157 P3d 216 (2007)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2015State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 622-23 , 853 P2d 256 (1991); Cook, 340 Or at 540 (“Although the United States Supreme Court no longer adheres to the Roberts test * * * we continue to use it to analyze Confrontation Clause claims under Article I, section 11 * * *.”). 2015State v. Nielsen, 316 Or 611, 622-23 , 853 P2d 256 (1991); Cook, 340 Or at 540 (“Although the United States Supreme Court no longer adheres to the Roberts test * * * we continue to use it to analyze Confrontation Clause claims under Article I, section 11 * * *.”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Application of Roberts
green
2 sentences1989This court's decision, Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or. 441 , 622 P.2d 1094 (1981), does not indicate whether Roberts' claim was sustained on state or federal constitutional grounds or both. [8] We recognize that nonavailability of attorney fees for state claims may cause plaintiffs to disfavor state claims when they have federal claims for which fees are available. 1989This court's decision, Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or. 441 , 622 P.2d 1094 (1981), does not indicate whether Roberts' claim was sustained on state or federal constitutional grounds or both. [8] We recognize that nonavailability of attorney fees for state claims may cause plaintiffs to disfavor state claims when they have federal claims for which fees are available. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.