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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2022“There is no waiver of a jury trial unless that waiver is in writing and, without a waiver, [a] defendant should * * * be[ ] tried by a jury.” State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 530 , 173 P3d 827 (2007). 2022“There is no waiver of a jury trial unless that waiver is in writing and, without a waiver, [a] defendant should * * * be[ ] tried by a jury.” State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 530 , 173 P3d 827 (2007). | 2 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In this context, the construct prescribed in Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), is, essentially, inap-posite—or, perhaps more precisely, admits to only one result: “We think that the unique wording of the part of Article I, section 11, that we emphasize today [e.g., ‘such election to be in writing’] and the unique kind of rights that that wording represents places errors committed with respect to it in a unique posture also: There is no waiver of a jury trial unless that waiver is in writing and, without a waiver, defendant should have been tried by a jur 2013In this context, the construct prescribed in Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), is, essentially, inap-posite—or, perhaps more precisely, admits to only one result: “We think that the unique wording of the part of Article I, section 11, that we emphasize today [e.g., ‘such election to be in writing’] and the unique kind of rights that that wording represents places errors committed with respect to it in a unique posture also: There is no waiver of a jury trial unless that waiver is in writing and, without a waiver, defendant should have been tried by a jur | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.