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 1984–2026 2 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. Rodriguez-Castillogreen2 sentences2012See id. at 496 (lead opinion) (upholding the trial court’s evidentiary ruling on that ground); id. at 513 , (Edmonds, J., concurring). 2012See id. at 496 (lead opinion) (upholding the trial court’s evidentiary ruling on that ground); id. at 513 , (Edmonds, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguez-Castillogreen2 sentences2018See State v. Rodriguez-Castillo , 345 Or. 39 , 49-50, 188 P.3d 268 (2008) (noting the importance of the notice requirement in *482 the residual exception because the parties need the opportunity to offer evidence on the various criteria and because the application of the residual exception requires the court to resolve factual issues and make discretionary decisions). 2018See State v. Rodriguez-Castillo , 345 Or. 39 , 49-50, 188 P.3d 268 (2008) (noting the importance of the notice requirement in *482 the residual exception because the parties need the opportunity to offer evidence on the various criteria and because the application of the residual exception requires the court to resolve factual issues and make discretionary decisions). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Campbell, 299 Or. 633, 639 , 705 P.2d 694 (1985) ("[The Legislative Commentary to OEC 803(28)] reserved to the legislature the authority to fashion new exceptions to the hearsay rule and expressly circumscribed the authority of the judicial system to create categories of hearsay which will be admissible under the residual exception."). 2007See State v. Campbell, 299 Or. 633, 639 , 705 P.2d 694 (1985) ("[The Legislative Commentary to OEC 803(28)] reserved to the legislature the authority to fashion new exceptions to the hearsay rule and expressly circumscribed the authority of the judicial system to create categories of hearsay which will be admissible under the residual exception."). | 1 | 2 |
Star Rentals, Inc. v. Seeberg Construction Co.green2 sentences2026See Star Rentals v. Seeberg Constr., 83 Or App 44, 49 , 730 P2d 573 (1986) (the residual exception “is to be used rarely and only in situations where the interest of justice require”). 2026See Star Rentals v. Seeberg Constr., 83 Or App 44, 49 , 730 P2d 573 (1986) (the residual exception “is to be used rarely and only in situations where the interest of justice require”). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Children's Services Division v. Pagegreen2 sentences2007Div. v. Page, 66 Or App 535, 539 , 647 P2d 1196 (1984) (“[W]here there is a specific hearsay exception applicable to a clearly defined category of evidence * * *, but the evidence fails to satisfy the requirements of the specific exception, the evidence should not be admitted under the residual exception.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). 2007See Page, 66 Or App at 540 . *555 The state contends that the entirety of K’s statements was nevertheless admissible because defendant forfeited his right to object on hearsay grounds by virtue of his wrongful relationship with K. 4 The common-law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing rule bars a defendant from asserting the constitutional right to confront a declarant whom the defendant has caused to be absent from trial, and, in this case, is also being asserted by the state as an exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Creamer v. General Teamsters Local Union 326green2 sentences1984More to the point, the commentary further states that the exception is available only if “the evidence is not admissible under any other exception * * *.” We agree that “* * * where there is a specific hearsay exception applicable to a clearly defined category of evidence * * *, but the evidence fails to satisfy the requirements of the specific exception, the evidence should not be admitted under the residual exception.” Creamer v. General Teamster’s Local Union 326, 560 F Supp 495, 498 (D Del 1983) (construing equivalent federal rule). 1984More to the point, the commentary further states that the exception is available only if “the evidence is not admissible under any other exception * * *.” We agree that “* * * where there is a specific hearsay exception applicable to a clearly defined category of evidence * * *, but the evidence fails to satisfy the requirements of the specific exception, the evidence should not be admitted under the residual exception.” Creamer v. General Teamster’s Local Union 326, 560 F Supp 495, 498 (D Del 1983) (construing equivalent federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching
green
1 sentence2022If it was not, the record may be admissible under the residual exception, Cite as 369 Or 214 (2022) 229 but only if the proponent proves that the record satisfies the requirements of that exception, that is, only if the propo- nent proves that the record is reliable, highly probative, and necessary.6 b. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ambriz-Arguello
neutral
1 sentence2018Ambriz-Arguello I , 285 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2008Accordingly, we hold that, in this procedural posture, the state may not rely on the residual exception to uphold the trial court’s ruling. *52 The remaining question is whether erroneously admitting the detective’s testimony was harmless — i.e., whether there was “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (stating standard). 2008Accordingly, we hold that, in this procedural posture, the state may not rely on the residual exception to uphold the trial court’s ruling. *52 The remaining question is whether erroneously admitting the detective’s testimony was harmless — i.e., whether there was “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (stating standard). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Farnam
green
2 sentences1995Before addressing OEC 804(3)(f), the residual exception to hearsay, plaintiffs urge that the statements come within other hearsay exceptions, which are grounds for affirming the trial court’s ruling. *627 Plaintiffs first argue that the statements were admissible under OEC 803(3) as statements of Forrest’s “existing state of mind * * * such as intent [or] plan * * They rely on McKinnon v. Chenoweth, 176 Or 74, 96 , 155 P2d 944 (1945), quoting from State v. Farnham, 82 Or 211, 250 , 161 P 417 (1916): “'[W]hen the question is whether a person did a certain act, his declarations, oral or written, 1995Before addressing OEC 804(3)(f), the residual exception to hearsay, plaintiffs urge that the statements come within other hearsay exceptions, which are grounds for affirming the trial court’s ruling. *627 Plaintiffs first argue that the statements were admissible under OEC 803(3) as statements of Forrest’s “existing state of mind * * * such as intent [or] plan * * They rely on McKinnon v. Chenoweth, 176 Or 74, 96 , 155 P2d 944 (1945), quoting from State v. Farnham, 82 Or 211, 250 , 161 P 417 (1916): “'[W]hen the question is whether a person did a certain act, his declarations, oral or written, | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McKinnon v. Chenoweth
green
2 sentences1995Before addressing OEC 804(3)(f), the residual exception to hearsay, plaintiffs urge that the statements come within other hearsay exceptions, which are grounds for affirming the trial court’s ruling. *627 Plaintiffs first argue that the statements were admissible under OEC 803(3) as statements of Forrest’s “existing state of mind * * * such as intent [or] plan * * They rely on McKinnon v. Chenoweth, 176 Or 74, 96 , 155 P2d 944 (1945), quoting from State v. Farnham, 82 Or 211, 250 , 161 P 417 (1916): “'[W]hen the question is whether a person did a certain act, his declarations, oral or written, 1995Before addressing OEC 804(3)(f), the residual exception to hearsay, plaintiffs urge that the statements come within other hearsay exceptions, which are grounds for affirming the trial court’s ruling. *627 Plaintiffs first argue that the statements were admissible under OEC 803(3) as statements of Forrest’s “existing state of mind * * * such as intent [or] plan * * They rely on McKinnon v. Chenoweth, 176 Or 74, 96 , 155 P2d 944 (1945), quoting from State v. Farnham, 82 Or 211, 250 , 161 P 417 (1916): “'[W]hen the question is whether a person did a certain act, his declarations, oral or written, | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
1 sentence1992Hearsay statements admitted under the residual exception, almost by definition, therefore do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” 497 US at __ . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.