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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2024 1 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. Clarkgreen1 sentence2024However, for the reasons stated in Clark, 286 Or at 39, 44 , and as already explained, the lost video evidence could have been used to call into question the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer result. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holcombgreen1 sentence1996See OAR 257-030-070; see also Holcomb, 99 Or App at 158 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Clackamas Countygreen1 sentence1994See Smith v. Clackamas County, 252 Or 230, 233 , 443 P2d 512 (1968) (the inclusion of specific matters implies a legislative intent to exclude related matters *267 not mentioned). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reavesgreen2 sentences1978See also State v. Reaves, 25 Or App 745 , 550 P2d 1403 , rev den (1976). 1978See also State v. Reaves, 25 Or App 745 , 550 P2d 1403 , rev den (1976). | 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. Penrod
green
1 sentence2001Penrod, 133 Or App at 458-59 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Sparklin
green
2 sentences1993The Spencer court, in quoting State v. Sparklin, supra, 296 Or. at 92 n. 9, 672 P.2d 1182 , said: "There can be no question that the right to an attorney during the investigative stage is at least as important as the right to counsel during the trial itself. 1993The Spencer court, in quoting State v. Sparklin, supra, 296 Or. at 92 n. 9, 672 P.2d 1182 , said: "There can be no question that the right to an attorney during the investigative stage is at least as important as the right to counsel during the trial itself. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Luth v. Motor Vehicles Division
green
2 sentences1990On remand, the court should determine if the officer’s actions deprived respondent of a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel. 1 Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 1 The state argues that, under Luth v. Motor Vehicles Division, 87 Or App 137 , 741 P2d 897 (1987), a subject has no right to complete privacy, because to allow him complete privacy would cause a delay of the 15-minute observation period and would unreasonably interfere with the administration of the test. 1990On remand, the court should determine if the officer’s actions deprived respondent of a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel. 1 Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 1 The state argues that, under Luth v. Motor Vehicles Division, 87 Or App 137 , 741 P2d 897 (1987), a subject has no right to complete privacy, because to allow him complete privacy would cause a delay of the 15-minute observation period and would unreasonably interfere with the administration of the test. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1981Assuming that the decision to take or refuse to take the test involves a personal confrontation of the accused, we must decide if "[t]he presence of [her] counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by [her] right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against [her] and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself.” United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 227 , 87 S Ct 1926 , 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967). 1981Assuming that the decision to take or refuse to take the test involves a personal confrontation of the accused, we must decide if "[t]he presence of [her] counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by [her] right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against [her] and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself.” United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 227 , 87 S Ct 1926 , 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Michener
green
2 sentences1977United States v. Agurs, supra. In State v. Michener, 25 Or App 523 , 550 P2d 449 , Sup Ct review denied (1976), we held the trial court properly suppressed the results of a breathalyzer test because the defendant had demonstrated a meaningful analysis of the destroyed breathalyzer ampules was possible and a reasonable possibility that an error occurred in the initial administration of the test. 1977United States v. Agurs, supra. In State v. Michener, 25 Or App 523 , 550 P2d 449 , Sup Ct review denied (1976), we held the trial court properly suppressed the results of a breathalyzer test because the defendant had demonstrated a meaningful analysis of the destroyed breathalyzer ampules was possible and a reasonable possibility that an error occurred in the initial administration of the test. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Zimmerman
neutral
1 sentence1973Unlike Fogle , the Breathalyzer and ampoule here used were shown to have been tested within 60 days prior to the administration of the test. ③ State v. Zimmerman, 11 Or App 166 , 510 P2d 1336 , Sup Ct review denied (1973). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Zimmerman
neutral
1 sentence1973Unlike Fogle , the Breathalyzer and ampoule here used were shown to have been tested within 60 days prior to the administration of the test. ③ State v. Zimmerman, 11 Or App 166 , 510 P2d 1336 , Sup Ct review denied (1973). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Indiana & Arkansas Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Brinkley
green
1 sentence1951In Wood v. Honeyman, 178 Or. 484, 567 , 169 P. 2d 131 , 171 A.L.R. 587 , we quoted with approval from Scott on Trusts, § 219.2: “A beneficiary is not barred by laches from holding a trustee liable for breach of trust if he did not know or have reason to know of the breach of trust.” In MeIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 516, 549 , 205 P. 2d 137 , 213 P. 2d 144 , 13 A.L.R. 2d 749 , we approved the following statement of the rule in equity respecting *85 laches made by the court in Indiana & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brinkley, 164 Fed. 963 : “The established rule for the administration of the doctrine of la | 1 | 1951–1951 |
McIver v. Norman
green
2 sentences1951In Wood v. Honeyman, 178 Or. 484, 567 , 169 P. 2d 131 , 171 A.L.R. 587 , we quoted with approval from Scott on Trusts, § 219.2: “A beneficiary is not barred by laches from holding a trustee liable for breach of trust if he did not know or have reason to know of the breach of trust.” In MeIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 516, 549 , 205 P. 2d 137 , 213 P. 2d 144 , 13 A.L.R. 2d 749 , we approved the following statement of the rule in equity respecting *85 laches made by the court in Indiana & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brinkley, 164 Fed. 963 : “The established rule for the administration of the doctrine of la 1951In Wood v. Honeyman, 178 Or. 484, 567 , 169 P. 2d 131 , 171 A.L.R. 587 , we quoted with approval from Scott on Trusts, § 219.2: “A beneficiary is not barred by laches from holding a trustee liable for breach of trust if he did not know or have reason to know of the breach of trust.” In MeIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 516, 549 , 205 P. 2d 137 , 213 P. 2d 144 , 13 A.L.R. 2d 749 , we approved the following statement of the rule in equity respecting *85 laches made by the court in Indiana & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brinkley, 164 Fed. 963 : “The established rule for the administration of the doctrine of la | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Wood v. Honeyman
green
2 sentences1951In Wood v. Honeyman, 178 Or. 484, 567 , 169 P. 2d 131 , 171 A.L.R. 587 , we quoted with approval from Scott on Trusts, § 219.2: “A beneficiary is not barred by laches from holding a trustee liable for breach of trust if he did not know or have reason to know of the breach of trust.” In MeIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 516, 549 , 205 P. 2d 137 , 213 P. 2d 144 , 13 A.L.R. 2d 749 , we approved the following statement of the rule in equity respecting *85 laches made by the court in Indiana & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brinkley, 164 Fed. 963 : “The established rule for the administration of the doctrine of la 1951In Wood v. Honeyman, 178 Or. 484, 567 , 169 P. 2d 131 , 171 A.L.R. 587 , we quoted with approval from Scott on Trusts, § 219.2: “A beneficiary is not barred by laches from holding a trustee liable for breach of trust if he did not know or have reason to know of the breach of trust.” In MeIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 516, 549 , 205 P. 2d 137 , 213 P. 2d 144 , 13 A.L.R. 2d 749 , we approved the following statement of the rule in equity respecting *85 laches made by the court in Indiana & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Brinkley, 164 Fed. 963 : “The established rule for the administration of the doctrine of la | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.