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.
12 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2019–2026 10 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. Kelemengreen2 sentences2025See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of probation, or that the offender has participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 296 Or App at 191 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make a trial court’s exercise of its revocation authority contingent on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”); State v. Licari, 261 Or App 805, 808 , 322 P3d 568 , rev den, 355 Or 880 (2014) (explaining that, if the trial court’s decision was within the range of legal 2025See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of probation, or that the offender has participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 296 Or App at 191 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make a trial court’s exercise of its revocation authority contingent on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”). | 9 | 9 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2019See Martin , 221 Or. | 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. Licari
green
2 sentences2026See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of probation, or that the offender has participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 296 at 191 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make a trial court’s exercise of its revocation authority contingent on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”); State v. Licari, 261 Or App 805, 808 , 322 P3d 568 , rev den, 355 Or 880 (2014) (explaining that, if the trial court’s decision was within the range of legally perm 2026See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of probation, or that the offender has participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 296 at 191 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make a trial court’s exercise of its revocation authority contingent on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”); State v. Licari, 261 Or App 805, 808 , 322 P3d 568 , rev den, 355 Or 880 (2014) (explaining that, if the trial court’s decision was within the range of legally perm | 4 | 2025–2026 |
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.