11 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc.green1 sentence2016Compare id. (pointing a firearm at another), with ORS 163.190 (menacing). | 1 | 1 |
Bankus v. City of Brookingsgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Bankus v. City of Brookings, 252 Or 257, 260 , 449 P2d 646 (1969) (“the authorities are uniform that the mandatory requirements of an ordinance specifically stated cannot be waived”). 2006See, e.g., Bankus v. City of Brookings, 252 Or 257, 260 , 449 P2d 646 (1969) (“the authorities are uniform that the mandatory requirements of an ordinance specifically stated cannot be waived”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daleygreen2 sentences1968See State v. Daley, 54 Or 514 , 103 P 502 , 104 P 1 (1909). 1968See State v. Daley, 54 Or 514 , 103 P 502 , 104 P 1 (1909). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Powell St. I, LLC v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor
green
1 sentence2023Powell Street I stands for the proposition that property is presumed to be occupied by a hypothetical entity while also considered to be immediately available for a new owner/tenant. 365 Or at 256 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Chambers
green
1 sentence2014In fact, we have stated that even a trial court’s explicit instruction to a pro se defendant as to the importance of subpoenaing witnesses, and warning that he should “get some help from an attorney or somebody on how to make sure you get that done,” would have been inadequate to convey the “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Chambers, 150 Or App at 340 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Saunders v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 389 . 3. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Department
green
1 sentence2008Id. at 392 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2006The court concluded that the source of the second inference “was not the defendant’s silence alone but, rather, his silence in the context of an explicit waiver of a right to a jury trial as to guilt and his express consent to have the trial court impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum.” Ramirez, 205 Or App at 122 . 2006In Ramirez , this court stated: “As a result, we proceed with the assumption that the third inference in Gornick either is redundant of the first or is predicated on the facts of that particular case in ways that the court simply did not describe. “* * * We do not read Gornick broadly to hold that, in all cases in which a defendant failed to object to the trial court’s departure findings, we cannot properly conclude that the trial court plainly erred in violation of Blakely and Apprendi.” 205 Or App at 123 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2003This court held that "[s]uch an explicit instruction would be erroneous in a criminal trial, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of guilt might be[,]" id. at 244 , 448 P.2d 534 , but went on to conclude that the error was harmless. 2003This court held that “[s]uch an explicit instruction would be erroneous in a criminal trial, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of guilt might be[,]” id. at 244 , but went on to conclude that the error was harmless. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2002With the single explicit exception of an offender's prior convictions, see Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , nothing in Apprendi endorses Quinn and Wedge's sweeping differentiation between the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. 2002With the single explicit exception of an offender's prior convictions, see Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , nothing in Apprendi endorses Quinn and Wedge's sweeping differentiation between the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Threet
green
2 sentences1992ORS 138.540 (1); State v. Threet, 294 Or 1 , 6 n 3, 653 P2d 960 (1982). 1992ORS 138.540 (1); State v. Threet, 294 Or 1 , 6 n 3, 653 P2d 960 (1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.