8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2025 5 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. Adamsgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev 2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev | 2 | 2 |
State v. Underhillgreen2 sentences1993See State v. Underhill, 120 Or App 584 , 587 n 1, 853 P2d 847 (1993). 5 Defendant did not argue below, nor does he argue on appeal, that asking him if the object in his shirt pocket was his “stash” was an impermissible inquiry. 6 Defendant does not challenge the confirmatory testing of the contents of the baggies and the pen barrel. 7 Defendant did not argue below that he did not consent to the intrusion into his pocket or that his consent to that intrusion was involuntary. 8 Defendant has presented no separate argument that his federal constitutional rights were violated. 1993See State v. Underhill, 120 Or App 584 , 587 n 1, 853 P2d 847 (1993). 5 Defendant did not argue below, nor does he argue on appeal, that asking him if the object in his shirt pocket was his “stash” was an impermissible inquiry. 6 Defendant does not challenge the confirmatory testing of the contents of the baggies and the pen barrel. 7 Defendant did not argue below that he did not consent to the intrusion into his pocket or that his consent to that intrusion was involuntary. 8 Defendant has presented no separate argument that his federal constitutional rights were violated. | 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. Rivera-Waddle
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev 2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Milnes
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev 2025See, e.g., State v. Adams, 302 Or App 730, 740-41 , 462 P3d 761 (2020) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation when trial court discussed both permissible and impermissible bases in its decision to revoke and “did not give any indication what it would do in the absence of the impermissible violation”); State v. Rivera- Waddle, 279 Or App 274, 280 , 379 P3d 820 (2016) (reversing and remanding a judgment revoking probation for recon- sideration in light of other bases for revocation); State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710 , 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding a judgment rev | 2 | 2025–2025 |
– State v. Patterson –
green
2 sentences2024Cf. State v. Patterson, 311 Kan 59, 64-68, 455 P3d 792 (2020) (collecting cases; explaining that some courts have held that their felony-murder statutes do not violate due process because intent to kill is not an element of the crime, while others have held that the presumption of malice is a rule of law and not a true presumption; and hold- ing that Kansas’s felony-murder statute “does not operate as an unconstitutional, conclusive presumption that invades the jury’s province” because “intent to kill is not an element of felony murder” under Kansas law). 2024Cf. State v. Patterson, 311 Kan 59, 64-68, 455 P3d 792 (2020) (collecting cases; explaining that some courts have held that their felony-murder statutes do not violate due process because intent to kill is not an element of the crime, while others have held that the presumption of malice is a rule of law and not a true presumption; and hold- ing that Kansas’s felony-murder statute “does not operate as an unconstitutional, conclusive presumption that invades the jury’s province” because “intent to kill is not an element of felony murder” under Kansas law). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. X. E. W.
green
1 sentence2024Affirmed. based on an impermissible standard of ‘no risk’ rather than ‘low risk.’ ” Id. at 12-13 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Isom
green
2 sentences2009To apply a statute retroactively in this manner raises the question of whether it is an impermissible violation of the prohibition of ex post facto laws found in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution. 2 See State v. Isom, 313 Or 391, 395 , 837 P2d 491 (1992) (the legislature “intends that Oregon courts sentence criminal defendants under the statutory scheme in force when a particular criminal act was committed”). 2009To apply a statute retroactively in this manner raises the question of whether it is an impermissible violation of the prohibition of ex post facto laws found in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution. 2 See State v. Isom, 313 Or 391, 395 , 837 P2d 491 (1992) (the legislature “intends that Oregon courts sentence criminal defendants under the statutory scheme in force when a particular criminal act was committed”). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Drake v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1986That is an impermissible instruction under Drake v. Anderson, 215 Or. 291, 297-98 , 334 P.2d 477 (1959), and Hess v. Oregon Baking Co., 31 Or. 503, 515 , 49 P. 803 (1897). 1986That is an impermissible instruction under Drake v. Anderson, 215 Or. 291, 297-98 , 334 P.2d 477 (1959), and Hess v. Oregon Baking Co., 31 Or. 503, 515 , 49 P. 803 (1897). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lampos v. Bazar, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986It is also an impermissible instruction under any reasonable interpretation of Lampos v. Bazar, Inc., 270 Or 256 , 527 P2d 376 (1974), the case relied on by the dissent. 1986It is also an impermissible instruction under any reasonable interpretation of Lampos v. Bazar, Inc., 270 Or 256 , 527 P2d 376 (1974), the case relied on by the dissent. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hess v. Oregon Baking Co.
green
2 sentences1986That is an impermissible instruction under Drake v. Anderson, 215 Or. 291, 297-98 , 334 P.2d 477 (1959), and Hess v. Oregon Baking Co., 31 Or. 503, 515 , 49 P. 803 (1897). 1986That is an impermissible instruction under Drake v. Anderson, 215 Or. 291, 297-98 , 334 P.2d 477 (1959), and Hess v. Oregon Baking Co., 31 Or. 503, 515 , 49 P. 803 (1897). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.