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 1971–1985 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1983To determine whether a particular government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure, Oregon courts have referred to the test advanced by Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 361 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967): “* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” State v. Holt, supra, 291 Or at 348 ; State v. Goude, 49 Or App 721, 725 , 620 P2d 957 (1980), rev den 290 Or 651 (1981). 1983To determine whether a particular government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure, Oregon courts have referred to the test advanced by Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 361 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967): “* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” State v. Holt, supra, 291 Or at 348 ; State v. Goude, 49 Or App 721, 725 , 620 P2d 957 (1980), rev den 290 Or 651 (1981). | 10 | 1971–1983 |
State v. Stanton
green
2 sentences1980In State v. Stanton, 7 Or App 286 , 490 P2d 1274 (1971), we approved a twofold test advanced by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz : " '* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable”. * * *’ 389 US at 361 .” 7 Or App at 293-294 . 1980In State v. Stanton, 7 Or App 286 , 490 P2d 1274 (1971), we approved a twofold test advanced by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in Katz : " '* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable”. * * *’ 389 US at 361 .” 7 Or App at 293-294 . | 4 | 1973–1980 |
State v. Newman
green
2 sentences1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). 1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Newman
neutral
2 sentences1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). 1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
South Dakota v. Opperman
green
2 sentences1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). 1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Oregon v. Newman
green
1 sentence1985South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364 , 370 n 5, 96 S Ct 3092 , 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976); State v. Newman, 49 Or App 313, 317 , 619 P2d 930 (1980), reversed on other grounds 292 Or 216 , 637 P2d 143 (1981), cert den 457 US 1111 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Holt
green
1 sentence1983To determine whether a particular government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure, Oregon courts have referred to the test advanced by Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 361 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967): “* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” State v. Holt, supra, 291 Or at 348 ; State v. Goude, 49 Or App 721, 725 , 620 P2d 957 (1980), rev den 290 Or 651 (1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Goude
green
2 sentences1983To determine whether a particular government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure, Oregon courts have referred to the test advanced by Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 361 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967): “* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” State v. Holt, supra, 291 Or at 348 ; State v. Goude, 49 Or App 721, 725 , 620 P2d 957 (1980), rev den 290 Or 651 (1981). 1983To determine whether a particular government intrusion constitutes a search or seizure, Oregon courts have referred to the test advanced by Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 361 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967): “* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” State v. Holt, supra, 291 Or at 348 ; State v. Goude, 49 Or App 721, 725 , 620 P2d 957 (1980), rev den 290 Or 651 (1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. DeLong
neutral
1 sentence1981App. 183 , 602 P.2d 665 (1979), rev. den. 288 Or. 571 (1980). [5] Certain exceptions to this general rule are not involved in this case ( e.g., contents can be inferred from the outward appearance of container, plain view, opening incident to a lawful custodial arrest, consent). [6] Justice Harlan, concurring in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967): "* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual [subjective] expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Corbett
green
2 sentences1974The claim of privacy is measured against the twofold test enunciated by Mr. Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 , 88 S Ct 507 , 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967), adopted by this court in State v. Stanton, 7 Or App 286, 293-94 , 490 P2d 1274 (1971), and applied in State v. Corbett, 15 Or App 470, 474 , 516 P2d 487 (1973), rev den (1974): a i# * * [T]h.ere is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable”. * * *’ 389 US at 361 .” Under these 1974App. 470 , 516 P.2d 487 , rev. den. (1974): "`* * * [T]here is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". * * *' 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516 ." Under these circumstances, any expectation the defendant had of privacy regarding his front porch could not be regarded *190 as reasonable. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.