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.
10 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 3 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. Copelandgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). 2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Rustgreen1 sentence2025Indeed, we understand defendant to no longer contest that Exhibit 1 was properly admissi- ble under OEC 803(8) over a general hearsay objection.4 Cf. Rust, 240 Or App at 751 (accepting the defendant’s conces- sion that his DMV driving record was admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edmondsgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). 2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cantwellgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). 2025See, e.g., State v. Edmonds, 364 Or 410, 422 , 435 P3d 752 (2019) (“the official records exception in OEC 803(8)(b)”); State v. Copeland, 353 Or 816, 841 , 306 P3d 610 (2013) (“the official records hearsay exception, OEC 803(8)”); State v. Cantwell, 324 Or App 8, 15 , 524 P3d 523 , rev den, 371 Or 106 (2023) (“the public records exception, OEC 803(8)(b)”). | 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 Ex Rel. Gladden v. Lonergan
green
2 sentences2020The court exam- ined the historical contours of the official-records exception to the common-law confrontation right, which rested on a presumption that “public officers do their duty,” indicating reliability where “an official duty exists to make an accu- rate statement.” Id. at 830 (quoting John Henry Wigmore, 5 Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1632, 618 (James H. 1984As the Supreme Court pointed out in State ex rel Gladden v. Lonergan, 201 Or 163 , 269 P2d 491 (1954), Article I, section 11, did not abolish the “well-established exceptions” to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 1984–2020 |
State v. Guzek
green
2 sentences2019We have recognized that, "when one statute deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with the same subject in a more minute and definite way, the two should be read together and harmonized, if possible, while giving effect to a consistent legislative policy." State v. Guzek , 322 Or. 245 , 268, 906 P.2d 272 (1995). 2019We have recognized that, "when one statute deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with the same subject in a more minute and definite way, the two should be read together and harmonized, if possible, while giving effect to a consistent legislative policy." State v. Guzek , 322 Or. 245 , 268, 906 P.2d 272 (1995). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Dowdell v. United States
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 298 n l. 7 The official records doctrine has long been recognized in the United States as well. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Conway
green
1 sentence2005Conway, 70 Or App at 724 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Finchum v. Lyons
green
2 sentences1976The test for the admissibility of official records under ORS 43.370 is stated in Finchum v. Lyons, 255 Or 216 at 219 , 465 P2d 708 (1970): " 'Under the exception to the hearsay rule just quoted, it is usually required that the officer either have personal knowledge of the facts of which he is under the duty to make a record or that he have the duty of ascertaining the truth of that which he does not know of his personal knowledge. 1976The test for the admissibility of official records under ORS 43.370 is stated in Finchum v. Lyons, 255 Or 216 at 219 , 465 P2d 708 (1970): " 'Under the exception to the hearsay rule just quoted, it is usually required that the officer either have personal knowledge of the facts of which he is under the duty to make a record or that he have the duty of ascertaining the truth of that which he does not know of his personal knowledge. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Allan v. Oceanside Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1970The official records exception to the hearsay rule is codified in ORS 43.370 and, as amended in 1967, reads as follows: “Entries in public or other official records, including books, data processing devices and computers, made by a public officer of this state or the United States in the performance of his duty or by another person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of either, are primary evidence of the facts stated.” In considering the foregoing statute in Allan v. Oceanside Lumber Co., 214 Or 27, 49 , 328 P2d 327 (1958). we said: “Under the exception to the hearsay r 1970The official records exception to the hearsay rule is codified in ORS 43.370 and, as amended in 1967, reads as follows: “Entries in public or other official records, including books, data processing devices and computers, made by a public officer of this state or the United States in the performance of his duty or by another person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of either, are primary evidence of the facts stated.” In considering the foregoing statute in Allan v. Oceanside Lumber Co., 214 Or 27, 49 , 328 P2d 327 (1958). we said: “Under the exception to the hearsay r | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.