8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 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. Trenarygreen2 sentences2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). 2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Brockgreen2 sentences2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). 2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). | 1 | 4 |
Hood River County v. Dabneygreen1 sentence2013See Dabney, 246 Or at 22 (concluding that, absent due process violation, there was no indication that legislature intended violation of statutory notice requirement to result in void judgment); see also Rogue Val. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ehretgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 14, 17 , 55 P3d 518 (2002), rev den, 337 Or 84 (2004) (stating that, under Article I, section 9, “in the absence of a constitutional violation of defendant’s personal rights *** there is no ground for suppression”). 2013See State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 14, 17 , 55 P3d 518 (2002), rev den, 337 Or 84 (2004) (stating that, under Article I, section 9, “in the absence of a constitutional violation of defendant’s personal rights *** there is no ground for suppression”). | 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. Davis
green
2 sentences2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). 2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). | 4 | 1993–2025 |
State v. Porter
green
2 sentences2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). 2025“In the absence of a constitutional violation or an express statu- tory requirement of exclusion,” this court would nonetheless exclude evidence obtained in violation of a statute “if the law violated was ‘designed to protect citizens against unautho- rized or illegal [conduct by the government],’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 237 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), or, otherwise stated, if suppression would effectuate the purpose of the statute.” Trenary, 316 Or at 176 (citing State v. Porter, 312 Or 112, 121 , 817 P2d 1306 (1991); State v. Brock, 294 Or 15, 22 , 653 P2d 543 (1982)). | 4 | 1993–2025 |
A. G. v. Guitron
green
2 sentences2013A. G. v. Guitron, 351 Or 465, 479 , 268 P3d 589 (2011). 8 There is no indication in ORCP 67 or any other provision of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure that the Council intended that a violation of the rule would render an ensuing default judgment “void” or otherwise deprive the court of authority to exercise its jurisdiction in the absence of a constitutional violation. 2013A. G. v. Guitron, 351 Or 465, 479 , 268 P3d 589 (2011). 8 There is no indication in ORCP 67 or any other provision of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure that the Council intended that a violation of the rule would render an ensuing default judgment “void” or otherwise deprive the court of authority to exercise its jurisdiction in the absence of a constitutional violation. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Valdez
green
2 sentences1992State v. Valdez, 277 Or. 621, 629 , 561 P.2d 1006 (1977). 1992State v. Valdez, 277 Or. 621, 629 , 561 P.2d 1006 (1977). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.