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 1972–2021 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. Florancegreen2 sentences1990The court held: "[U]nder the Robinson rule the items which may properly be seized upon the making of a search as an incident to a lawful custodial arrest include not only weapons and other articles which may be used to either threaten the life of the arresting officer or to effect an escape, and `instrumentalities' of the crime for which the person was arrested and evidence of that crime, but also contraband evidence of other crimes." 270 Or. at 185 , 527 P.2d 1202 . 1990The court held: "[U]nder the Robinson rule the items which may properly be seized upon the making of a search as an incident to a lawful custodial arrest include not only weapons and other articles which may be used to either threaten the life of the arresting officer or to effect an escape, and `instrumentalities' of the crime for which the person was arrested and evidence of that crime, but also contraband evidence of other crimes." 270 Or. at 185 , 527 P.2d 1202 . | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1975In State v. Florance, supra, the court stated: “* * * We hold, however, that under the Robinson rule [United States v. Robinson, 414 US 218 , 94 S Ct 467 , 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973) ] the items which may properly be seized upon the making of a seareh as an incident to a lawful custodial arrest include not only weapons and other articles which may be used to either threaten the life of the arresting officer or to effect an escape, and ‘instrumentalities’ of the crime for which the person was arrested and evidence of that crime, but also contraband evidence of other crimes.” 270 at 185. 1975In State v. Florance, supra, the court stated: “* * * We hold, however, that under the Robinson rule [United States v. Robinson, 414 US 218 , 94 S Ct 467 , 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973) ] the items which may properly be seized upon the making of a seareh as an incident to a lawful custodial arrest include not only weapons and other articles which may be used to either threaten the life of the arresting officer or to effect an escape, and ‘instrumentalities’ of the crime for which the person was arrested and evidence of that crime, but also contraband evidence of other crimes.” 270 at 185. | 1 | 2 |
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen2 sentences1974In addition, and as pointed out by the Michigan court in its discussion of Robinson in People v. Moore, supra at 774 , Justice Rehnquist (the author of Robinson) said in an earlier case that “The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 US 433, 439 , 93 S Ct 2523 , 37 L ed 2d 706, 713 (1973). 1974In addition, and as pointed out by the Michigan court in its discussion of Robinson in People v. Moore, supra at 774 , Justice Rehnquist (the author of Robinson) said in an earlier case that “The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 US 433, 439 , 93 S Ct 2523 , 37 L ed 2d 706, 713 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences1974In addition, and as pointed out by the Michigan court in its discussion of Robinson in People v. Moore, supra, 216 N.W.2d at 774, Justice Rehnquist (the author of Robinson) said in an earlier case that "The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness" Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439 , 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2527 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 713 (1973). 1974In addition, and as pointed out by the Michigan court in its discussion of Robinson in People v. Moore, supra, 216 N.W.2d at 774, Justice Rehnquist (the author of Robinson) said in an earlier case that "The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness" Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439 , 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2527 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 713 (1973). | 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. Florance
green
2 sentences1982In our opinion in "State v. Florance, 15 Or App 118 , 515 P2d 195 (1973), rev’d 270 Or 169 , 527 P2d 1202 (1974), we pointed out that after a valid full custodial arrest, the officer removed small bags containing a powdered substance. 1982In our opinion in "State v. Florance, 15 Or App 118 , 515 P2d 195 (1973), rev’d 270 Or 169 , 527 P2d 1202 (1974), we pointed out that after a valid full custodial arrest, the officer removed small bags containing a powdered substance. | 2 | 1974–1982 |
Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2021A. Robinson’s Analytical Framework for Issues of Personal Jurisdiction We described in Robinson “three inquiries”—or requirements—that govern “whether specific jurisdiction exists.” 354 Or at 579 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Steenson v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2018Steenson , 236 Or. at 415 , 385 P.2d 738 . 2018Steenson , 236 Or. at 415 , 385 P.2d 738 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Barendrecht v. Clark
green
2 sentences2011The trial court orally denied Robinson’s motion, explaining that, “[s]o with respect to the motions to intervene, I do believe that they are sufficient evidence of a — of an indemnity, indemnitable relationship exist — existing between the physicians and [defendant] to support there being a * * * legal interest of a sufficient nature and a sufficiently direct impact under the [Barendrecht v. Clark, 244 Or 524 , 419 P2d 603 (1966),] case. 2011The trial court orally denied Robinson’s motion, explaining that, “[s]o with respect to the motions to intervene, I do believe that they are sufficient evidence of a — of an indemnity, indemnitable relationship exist — existing between the physicians and [defendant] to support there being a * * * legal interest of a sufficient nature and a sufficiently direct impact under the [Barendrecht v. Clark, 244 Or 524 , 419 P2d 603 (1966),] case. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Caraher
green
2 sentences1990In State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741 , 653 P.2d 942 (1982), the court overruled the holding in State v. Florance, supra , that the Oregon courts must follow the United States Supreme Court's rulings in search and seizure cases. 1990In State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741 , 653 P.2d 942 (1982), the court overruled the holding in State v. Florance, supra , that the Oregon courts must follow the United States Supreme Court's rulings in search and seizure cases. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Zehrung v. State
green
2 sentences1982As the court said, “Put another way, the issue presented is whether the fourth McCoy limitation on searches incident to arrest, i.e., that the arrest must be for a crime, evidence of which could be concealed on a person, is required by the Alaska Constitution. * * *” 569 P2d at 197 . 1982As the court said, “Put another way, the issue presented is whether the fourth McCoy limitation on searches incident to arrest, i.e., that the arrest must be for a crime, evidence of which could be concealed on a person, is required by the Alaska Constitution. * * *” 569 P2d at 197 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Huss
green
2 sentences1978The closest we have come to meeting the issue was in State v. Huss, 23 Or. 1978The closest we have come to meeting the issue was in State v. Huss, 23 Or. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Rochin v. California
green
2 sentences1974The majority also suggests another limitation on the right to search under the Robinson rule, where the search partakes of “the extreme or patently abusive characteristics which were held to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Rochin v. California, 342 US 165 , 72 S Ct 205 , 96 L Ed 183 , 25 ALR2d 1396 (1952)” (United States v. Robinson, supra 38 L Ed2d at 441). 1974The majority also suggests another limitation on the right to search under the Robinson rule, where the search partakes of “the extreme or patently abusive characteristics which were held to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Rochin v. California, 342 US 165 , 72 S Ct 205 , 96 L Ed 183 , 25 ALR2d 1396 (1952)” (United States v. Robinson, supra 38 L Ed2d at 441). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1972This need for concurrent determination distinguishes the present case from Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 [ 84 S Ct 1774 , 12 L Ed 2d 908 ] (1964), where we held that on remand the State could discharge its constitutional obligation by giving the accused a separate hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.” 383 US at 386-87 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1972This need for concurrent determination distinguishes the present case from Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 [ 84 S Ct 1774 , 12 L Ed 2d 908 ] (1964), where we held that on remand the State could discharge its constitutional obligation by giving the accused a separate hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.” 383 US at 386-87 . 1972This need for concurrent determination distinguishes the present case from Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 [ 84 S Ct 1774 , 12 L Ed 2d 908 ] (1964), where we held that on remand the State could discharge its constitutional obligation by giving the accused a separate hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.” 383 US at 386-87 . | 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.