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 2001–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Wardgreen2 sentences2004In doing so, the Court has pointed out that the identified factors are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dis-positive.” Ward, 448 US at 249 . 2002See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-69 , 83 S Ct 554 , 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963) (identifying factors). 16 In doing so, the Court has pointed out that the identified factors are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dis-positive.” Ward, 448 US at 249 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Partaingreen2 sentences2015“Put differently: the court may impose the same sentence that it previously imposed— if such a sentence is legally permissible — or it may impose a different sentence — if a different sentence is legally permissible.” Id. at 8 ; see also State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 19 , 239 P3d 232 (2010) (under ORS 138.222(5), after remand, the trial court may “impose different sentences on any and all counts — even those not affected by the identified error”). 2015“Put differently: the court may impose the same sentence that it previously imposed— if such a sentence is legally permissible — or it may impose a different sentence — if a different sentence is legally permissible.” Id. at 8 ; see also State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 19 , 239 P3d 232 (2010) (under ORS 138.222(5), after remand, the trial court may “impose different sentences on any and all counts — even those not affected by the identified error”). | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinezgreen2 sentences2002See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-69 , 83 S Ct 554 , 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963) (identifying factors). 16 In doing so, the Court has pointed out that the identified factors are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dis-positive.” Ward, 448 US at 249 . 2002See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-69 , 83 S Ct 554 , 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963) (identifying factors). 16 In doing so, the Court has pointed out that the identified factors are “certainly neither exhaustive nor dis-positive.” Ward, 448 US at 249 . | 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. Hightower
green
2 sentences2025On remand, a trial court must “focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions pro- vided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the identified error.” Id. at 385 . 2025On remand, a trial court must “focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions pro- vided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the identified error.” Id. at 385 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Omar
neutral
1 sentence2022Acknowledging that each appellate opinion 1 Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel[.]” Cite as 321 Or App 403 (2022) 405 “that results in remand” has “its own explicit and implicit determinations about” the trial court record and the error, Hightower II directs trial courts interpreting such remand decisions to “focus not only on the explicit and implicit instructions provided in the appellate court’s opinion, but also on the entirety of the record as it relates to the | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2021Although Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution precludes reversal when there is “little likelihood” that a particular error affected the verdict, see Davis, 336 Or at 32 , there 388 State v. Hightower may be instances in which a reversible error did not affect the verdict in a way that requires a new trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kendoll v. Rosenblum
green
1 sentence2015Cite as 358 Or 282 (2015) 289 should highlight for potential voters. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. HOLLINGQUEST
green
1 sentence2015“Put differently: the court may impose the same sentence that it previously imposed— if such a sentence is legally permissible — or it may impose a different sentence — if a different sentence is legally permissible.” Id. at 8 ; see also State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 19 , 239 P3d 232 (2010) (under ORS 138.222(5), after remand, the trial court may “impose different sentences on any and all counts — even those not affected by the identified error”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Link
green
1 sentence2015Because the trial court has authority to alter the previously imposed sentences, we have held that “the defendant is entitled to present evidence and argument pertaining to the resentencing proceeding.” Link, 260 Or App at 217 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2010Each of those three clues in the HGN test is observed as to each eye, for a total of six possible clues on the test. [3] In Brown, 297 Or. at 417 , 687 P.2d 751 , the court identified these factors as guidelines: "(1) The technique's general acceptance in the field; "(2) The expert's qualifications and stature; "(3) The use which has been made of the technique; "(4) The potential rate of error; "(5) The existence of specialized literature; "(6) The novelty of the invention; and "(7) The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert." [4] The DRE protocol c 2010Each of those three clues in the HGN test is observed as to each eye, for a total of six possible clues on the test. [3] In Brown, 297 Or. at 417 , 687 P.2d 751 , the court identified these factors as guidelines: "(1) The technique's general acceptance in the field; "(2) The expert's qualifications and stature; "(3) The use which has been made of the technique; "(4) The potential rate of error; "(5) The existence of specialized literature; "(6) The novelty of the invention; and "(7) The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert." [4] The DRE protocol c | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Gordon Sayre Little v. Gladden
green
2 sentences2006Cf. Gordon Sayre Little v. Gladden, 202 Or 16, 23-26 , 273 P2d 443 (1954) (determining that the petitioner was entitled to collateral relief pertaining to unlawful sentence; remanding for imposition of lawful sentence; discussing and approving practice of remedying only those defects identified in collateral proceeding). 2006Cf. Gordon Sayre Little v. Gladden, 202 Or 16, 23-26 , 273 P2d 443 (1954) (determining that the petitioner was entitled to collateral relief pertaining to unlawful sentence; remanding for imposition of lawful sentence; discussing and approving practice of remedying only those defects identified in collateral proceeding). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Supension of Driving Privileges of Cole v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Tollefson v. Price
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 401 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.