notable exception (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

notable exception in Oregon

10 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2024 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Turnergreen
or · 1969 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993In State v. Turner, 253 Or. 235, 238, 240 , 453 P.2d 910 (1969), the court held that juvenile adjudications had sufficient guarantees of due process to commit juveniles to juvenile facilities, even in the absence of a jury trial.

1993In State v. Turner, 253 Or. 235, 238, 240 , 453 P.2d 910 (1969), the court held that juvenile adjudications had sufficient guarantees of due process to commit juveniles to juvenile facilities, even in the absence of a jury trial.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Jewell v. State green
ind · 2011
2 sentences

2016In Jewell v. State, 957 NE2d 625 (2011), the court adhered to a version of the inextricably intertwined test as a mat- ter of independent interpretation of its state constitutional guarantee of the right to counsel.

2016In Jewell v. State, 957 NE2d 625 (2011), the court adhered to a version of the inextricably intertwined test as a matter of independent interpretation of its state constitutional guarantee of the right to counsel.

22016–2016
State v. Chinn green
or · 1962
2 sentences

1970It follows that the state cannot rely on the rule that “The notable exception to the demand for a search warrant is, of course, the search made as an incident of a lawful arrest.” State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259 , 373 P2d 392 (1962).

1970It follows that the state cannot rely on the rule that “The notable exception to the demand for a search warrant is, of course, the search made as an incident of a lawful arrest.” State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259 , 373 P2d 392 (1962).

21966–1970
State v. A. M. green
orctapp · 2024
1 sentence

2024P. commitment hearings in the county will “be held remote- ly.”1 The facts and posture of this case are nearly identi- cal to those in State v. A. M., 333 Or App 453 ___ P3d ___ (2024), with the notable exception of the documented level of technological challenges involved in holding the hearing remotely.

12024–2024
Anderson v. Employment Division neutral
orctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1996First, it is not apparent that all disqualifications are always based on a claimant’s volitional act — the notable exception being the labor dispute disqualification, ORS 657.200.” Id. at 849 .

11996–1996
State v. Oary neutral
orctapp · 1991
2 sentences

1992See ORS 813.020(2); State v. Oary, 109 Or.App. 580 , 820 P.2d 857 (1991), mod. 112 Or.App. 296 , 829 P.2d 90 (1992). [4] For most misdemeanors, the sentence is entirely a matter of trial court *733 discretion.

1992See ORS 813.020(2); State v. Oary, 109 Or.App. 580 , 820 P.2d 857 (1991), mod. 112 Or.App. 296 , 829 P.2d 90 (1992). [4] For most misdemeanors, the sentence is entirely a matter of trial court *733 discretion.

11992–1992
State v. Oary neutral
orctapp · 1992
2 sentences

1992See ORS 813.020(2); State v. Oary, 109 Or.App. 580 , 820 P.2d 857 (1991), mod. 112 Or.App. 296 , 829 P.2d 90 (1992). [4] For most misdemeanors, the sentence is entirely a matter of trial court *733 discretion.

1992See ORS 813.020(2); State v. Oary, 109 Or.App. 580 , 820 P.2d 857 (1991), mod. 112 Or.App. 296 , 829 P.2d 90 (1992). [4] For most misdemeanors, the sentence is entirely a matter of trial court *733 discretion.

11992–1992
Priestly v. Superior Court green
cal · 1958
1 sentence

1966On this issue the state has the burden of proof: Priestly v. Superior Court, 50 Cal 2d 812, 816, 330 P2d 39 ; 5 Am Jur 2d 714, Arrest § 24.

11966–1966
United States v. Rabinowitz red
scotus · 1950
2 sentences

1966State v. Chinn, supra, 267 ; Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 367 , 84 S Ct 881 , 11 L ed2d 777 (1964); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 US 56, 72 , 70 S Ct 430 , 94 L ed 653 (1950) dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J.

1966State v. Chinn, supra, 267 ; Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 367 , 84 S Ct 881 , 11 L ed2d 777 (1964); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 US 56, 72 , 70 S Ct 430 , 94 L ed 653 (1950) dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J.

11966–1966
Preston v. United States green
scotus · 1964
2 sentences

1966State v. Chinn, supra, 267 ; Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 367 , 84 S Ct 881 , 11 L ed2d 777 (1964); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 US 56, 72 , 70 S Ct 430 , 94 L ed 653 (1950) dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J.

1966State v. Chinn, supra, 267 ; Preston v. United States, 376 US 364, 367 , 84 S Ct 881 , 11 L ed2d 777 (1964); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 US 56, 72 , 70 S Ct 430 , 94 L ed 653 (1950) dissenting opinion of Frankfurter, J.

11966–1966
Marron v. United States green
scotus · 1927
2 sentences

1962State v. Randolph, 222 Or 389 , 353 P2d 238 (1960); State v. Hoover, supra; and see Marron v. United States, 275 US 192 , 48 S Ct 74 , 72 L Ed 231 (1927).

1962State v. Randolph, 222 Or 389 , 353 P2d 238 (1960); State v. Hoover, supra; and see Marron v. United States, 275 US 192 , 48 S Ct 74 , 72 L Ed 231 (1927).

11962–1962
State v. Randolph neutral
or · 1960
2 sentences

1962State v. Randolph, 222 Or 389 , 353 P2d 238 (1960); State v. Hoover, supra; and see Marron v. United States, 275 US 192 , 48 S Ct 74 , 72 L Ed 231 (1927).

1962State v. Randolph, 222 Or 389 , 353 P2d 238 (1960); State v. Hoover, supra; and see Marron v. United States, 275 US 192 , 48 S Ct 74 , 72 L Ed 231 (1927).

11962–1962

Where else courts name it

CA 19 (1976–2024) NY 17 (1955–2014) OH 16 (1905–2026) FL 15 (1973–2015) TX 13 (1945–2026) IL 13 (1979–2024) IN 12 (1885–2020) OR 10 (1962–2024) NJ 9 (1976–2010) AR 9 (1999–2022) GA 7 (1931–1994) PA 6 (1965–2024) SC 6 (1939–2020) MD 6 (1959–2020) HI 5 (1999–2022) MN 5 (1902–2026) TN 5 (1997–2013) KS 5 (1903–2025) MI 5 (2006–2023) CT 4 (1972–2023) MO 4 (1987–2009) LA 4 (1953–2018) WA 3 (2001–2025) DC 3 (1997–2020) WV 3 (1974–2022) CO 3 (1963–2017) AK 3 (1996–2015) ID 2 (1989–2006) AZ 2 (1971–2013) SD 2 (1983–2024) KY 2 (2011–2016) OK 2 (1913–1953) NM 2 (1982–2003) WI 2 (1959–2008) AL 2 (2000–2001) NE 2 (1981–2018) IA 2 (1968–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check