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.
12 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2019 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. Younggreen2 sentences2018See Young , 108 Or.App. at 206 , 816 P.2d 612 (trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the informant's identity, including for an in camera disclosure, because the trial court determined that the CI was credible and the information supplied was reliable); OEC 510(4)(c) (" If disclosure of the identity of the informer is made in camera , the record thereof shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal" (emphasis added)). 6 Thus, *229 the trial court did not err in denying defendant's discovery requests. 2018See Young , 108 Or.App. at 206 , 816 P.2d 612 (trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the informant's identity, including for an in camera disclosure, because the trial court determined that the CI was credible and the information supplied was reliable); OEC 510(4)(c) (" If disclosure of the identity of the informer is made in camera , the record thereof shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal" (emphasis added)). 6 Thus, *229 the trial court did not err in denying defendant's discovery requests. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blakegreen1 sentence1987See State v. Blake, supra, 292 Or at 490 (Lent, J. dissenting) quoting language from the former Oregon Evidence Code. | 1 | 1 |
Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LEARYgreen1 sentence1987See 80 Or App at 761 . | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Unisgreen1 sentence1978See also Comment, The Future Crime or Tort Exception to Communications Privileges, 77 Harv L Rev 730, 738 (1964), suggesting that an in camera hearing be held after 'extrinsic evidence and information gleaned from questions concerning the general purpose and nature of the parties’ consultation provide some support for an allegation of unlawful purpose * * *.’ ” 282 Or at 463-64 . | 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. Brewton
green
2 sentences1969Call in the jury.” Although in this language the judge made no specific finding of voluntariness, the very purpose of the in camera hearing under State v. Brewton, 238 Or 590 , 395 P2d 874 (1964), was to hear evidence and decide that question. 1969Call in the jury.” Although in this language the judge made no specific finding of voluntariness, the very purpose of the in camera hearing under State v. Brewton, 238 Or 590 , 395 P2d 874 (1964), was to hear evidence and decide that question. | 2 | 1969–1970 |
State v. Cervantes
neutral
1 sentence2019Such an authorization raises questions of invasion of the right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Seventh 6 OEC 104(2) provides that a court shall admit evidence whose relevancy depends on the fulfillment of a condition of fact “upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.” OEC 412(4)(b) provides that “notwithstanding” OEC 104(2), the court at an in camera hearing “shall accept evidence on the issue of whether the condition of fact is fulfilled and shall determine the issue.” We note that, in Cervantes, whether the vic | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Presley v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2013Presley v. Georgia, 558 US 209, 211-12 , 130 S Ct 721 , 175 L Ed 2d 675 (2010). 2013Presley v. Georgia, 558 US 209, 211-12 , 130 S Ct 721 , 175 L Ed 2d 675 (2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Lajoie
green
2 sentences2013In contrast, the evidence to be considered at an OEC 412 hearing is presumptively irrelevant, and the harm that the legislature intended to prevent by requiring an in camera hearing is not the appearance of the victim as a witness, but the “degrading and embarrassing disclosure of intimate details about [the victim’s] private li[fe].” State v. Lajoie, 316 Or 63, 69 , 849 P2d 479 (1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 2013In contrast, the evidence to be considered at an OEC 412 hearing is presumptively irrelevant, and the harm that the legislature intended to prevent by requiring an in camera hearing is not the appearance of the victim as a witness, but the “degrading and embarrassing disclosure of intimate details about [the victim’s] private li[fe].” State v. Lajoie, 316 Or 63, 69 , 849 P2d 479 (1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Blake
green
1 sentence1982This is all that he is entitled to under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. * * * The minimal inconvenience to the defendant is, on the other hand, greatly overbalanced by the protection of the rape victim from herself being ‘placed on trial’ as to matters not helpful or relevant to the defendant’s legitimate defenses, and as to which matters neither the jury nor the public has a proper concern to hear during the course of the defendant’s trial.” 53 Or App at 919-20 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Lopez
green
2 sentences1980In contrast, in United States v. Lopez, 328 F Supp 1077 (E.D.N.Y. 1971), where the court analyzed the use of a hijacker’s profile during the airline boarding process, the court held an in camera hearing during which it received detailed testimony as to: the studies underlying the profile; the procedures used in developing the profile; the statistical, sociological and psychological data and techniques supporting the profile; the elements of the profile; and the method in which the profile was applied, as an integral part of more extensive procedures, by airport personnel in isolating potential 1980In contrast, in United States v. Lopez, 328 F. Supp. 1077 (E.D.N.Y. 1971), where the court analyzed the use of a hijacker's profile during the airline boarding process, the court held an in camera hearing during which it received detailed testimony as to: the studies underlying the profile; the procedures used in developing the profile; the statistical, sociological and psychological data and techniques supporting the profile; the elements of the profile; and the method in which the profile was applied, as an integral part of more extensive procedures, by airport personnel in isolating potenti | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co.
green
2 sentences1976The trial court at the second trial properly granted defendant what amounted to an in camera hearing on the evidence relating to motive for making a false accusation pursuant to ORS 163.475(4), together with its power to fashion appropriate procedures under ORS 1.160, which provides: "When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or by statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically pointed out by the procedural statutes, any suitable process or mode of 1976The trial court at the second trial properly granted defendant what amounted to an in camera hearing on the evidence relating to motive for making a false accusation pursuant to ORS 163.475(4), together with its power to fashion appropriate procedures under ORS 1.160, which provides: "When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or by statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically pointed out by the procedural statutes, any suitable process or mode of | 1 | 1976–1976 |
K v. Health Div., Dept. of Human Resources
neutral
2 sentences1976The trial court at the second trial properly granted defendant what amounted to an in camera hearing on the evidence relating to motive for making a false accusation pursuant to ORS 163.475(4), together with its power to fashion appropriate procedures under ORS 1.160, which provides: "When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or by statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically pointed out by the procedural statutes, any suitable process or mode of 1976The trial court at the second trial properly granted defendant what amounted to an in camera hearing on the evidence relating to motive for making a false accusation pursuant to ORS 163.475(4), together with its power to fashion appropriate procedures under ORS 1.160, which provides: "When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or by statute, conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding is not specifically pointed out by the procedural statutes, any suitable process or mode of | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1972Defendant relies upon State v. Smith, 242 Or 223 , 408 P2d 942 (1965), where a conviction was reversed because a written confession was received in evidence without the court first having an in camera hearing to determine if it were voluntarily given. 1972Defendant relies upon State v. Smith, 242 Or 223 , 408 P2d 942 (1965), where a conviction was reversed because a written confession was received in evidence without the court first having an in camera hearing to determine if it were voluntarily given. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.