societal standard in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Gonzalezgreen or · 2025 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026The court explained that, in Ryan, it had recognized the legislature’s pronounce- ment on the age of criminal responsibility, ORS 161.290,3 as relevant to the proportionality analysis, “ ‘because it is objective evidence of a societal standard that eschews treat- ing persons with the attributes of a pre-teen child as if they were normally abled adult offenders.’ ” Gonzalez II, 373 Or at 259 (quoting Ryan, 361 Or at 624 ). 2026(Emphasis added.) Given that acknowledgment, the court stated that the question before it was whether the court “can identify a societal standard that requires a court to view a person with a constellation of mental health attributes com- parable to defendant’s as so much less culpable than peo- ple without those attributes that the mandatory 90-month sentence cannot constitutionally be imposed.” Id. (emphasis added).	2	5
State v. Gonzalezgreen orctapp · 2023 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026Additionally, citing our observation in Gonzalez I that the defendant “had identified ‘no statutory or other basis’ for the societal standard of which defendant urges recognition,” Gonzalez I, 326 Or App at 602 , the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s contention that our opinion had held that only a statutory basis can establish a societal standard for consideration of personal characteristics. 2025Gonzalez, 326 Or App at 602 (emphasis added).	2	5
State v. Lancastergreen orctapp · 2025 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026See State v. Lancaster, 345 Or App 155, 158 , 581 P3d 989 (2025) (applying standard). 2025Cite as 345 Or App 155 (2025) 159 The remaining two factors also do not persuade us that defendant’s sentence is constitutionally disproportion- ate.	1	3

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Ryan green or · 2017 2 sentences 2026The court explained that, in Ryan, it had recognized the legislature’s pronounce- ment on the age of criminal responsibility, ORS 161.290,3 as relevant to the proportionality analysis, “ ‘because it is objective evidence of a societal standard that eschews treat- ing persons with the attributes of a pre-teen child as if they were normally abled adult offenders.’ ” Gonzalez II, 373 Or at 259 (quoting Ryan, 361 Or at 624 ). 2018The court used ORS 161.290(1), which provides that a person tried as an adult is not criminally responsible for conduct occurring when the person was under 12 years of age, as "objective evidence of a societal standard that eschews treating persons with the attributes of a pre-teen child as if they were normally abled adult offenders." Id . at 624, 396 P.3d 867 .	4	2018–2026
Graham v. Florida green scotus · 2010 2 sentences 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”). 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”).	2	2017–2017
Taylor v. Florida green scotus · 2014 2 sentences 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”). 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”).	2	2017–2017
Haugen v. Kitzhaber green or · 2013 2 sentences 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”). 2017Cf. Haugen v. Kitzhaber, 353 Or 715, 744 , 306 P3d 592 (2013), cert den, __ US __, 134 S Ct 1009 (2014) (citing Graham, 560 US at 61 , for proposition that, in proportionality challenge under Eighth Amendment, court considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue”).	2	2017–2017
State v. Clark neutral orctapp · 2026 2 sentences 2026Gonzalez Cite as 347 Or App 721 (2026) 729 II, 373 Or at 268-69 . 2026Whether or not a person chooses to invoke those statutes for purposes of establishing guilt except for insanity, we conclude that Cite as 347 Or App 721 (2026) 735 ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide a societal standard that recognizes that a person who suffers from a qualifying mental disorder may be less morally culpable.	1	2026–2026

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.700 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.290 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.295 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.427 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.719 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.300 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.375 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.405 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.411 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 163A.005 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.325 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OR 8 (2017–2026) WA 5 (1983–2003) CO 4 (1980–1997) IL 2 (2025–2025)

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