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.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2024In con- trast to the Frye standard, the rules do not give “any indica- tion that ‘general acceptance’ [was] a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence.” Id. 2024In con- trast to the Frye standard, the rules do not give “any indica- tion that ‘general acceptance’ [was] a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Williamsongreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 599-600 , 166 P.3d 387, 389-90 (2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erroneously admitted lidar-speed evidence because the state had failed to present evidence on the scientific validity of the technology); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (agreeing with the trial court's determination, following a Frye hearing, that "the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community," but also concluding that such a hearing was unnecessary because the defendant "effecti 2011See, e.g., State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 599-600 , 166 P.3d 387, 389-90 (2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erroneously admitted lidar-speed evidence because the state had failed to present evidence on the scientific validity of the technology); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (agreeing with the trial court's determination, following a Frye hearing, that "the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community," but also concluding that such a hearing was unnecessary because the defendant "effecti | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellyred2 sentences1984Individual judges whose particular conclusions may differ regarding the reliability of particular scientific evidence may discover substantial agreement and consensus in the scientific community.’ [People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24, 31 , 549 P.2d 1240, 1244-45 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 148-49 (1976).] Finally, the Maryland Supreme Court has commented that ‘[w]ithout the Frye test or something similar, the reliability of an experimental scientific technique is likely to become a central issue in each trial in which it is introduced, as long as there remains serious disagreement in the scientific communi 1984Individual judges whose particular conclusions may differ regarding the reliability of particular scientific evidence may discover substantial agreement and consensus in the scientific community.’ [People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24, 31 , 549 P.2d 1240, 1244-45 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 148-49 (1976).] Finally, the Maryland Supreme Court has commented that ‘[w]ithout the Frye test or something similar, the reliability of an experimental scientific technique is likely to become a central issue in each trial in which it is introduced, as long as there remains serious disagreement in the scientific communi | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen2 sentences1984Again and again, the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses will be... protracted and time-consuming... and proceedings may well degenerate into trials of the technique itself.’ [Reed v. State, 238 Md. 374, 388 , 391 A.2d 364, 371-72 (1978).]” (Text of footnotes in brackets.) Symposium on Science and Rules of Evidence, 99 FRD 187, 191 (1983). 1984Again and again, the examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses will be... protracted and time-consuming... and proceedings may well degenerate into trials of the technique itself.’ [Reed v. State, 238 Md. 374, 388 , 391 A.2d 364, 371-72 (1978).]” (Text of footnotes in brackets.) Symposium on Science and Rules of Evidence, 99 FRD 187, 191 (1983). | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences2024General acceptance in the relevant scientific community—the key determination in the Frye test—was made to be “one of seven factors to be considered in determining the relevancy of scientific evidence.”2 Id. at 417 . 2024General acceptance in the relevant scientific community—the key determination in the Frye test—was made to be “one of seven factors to be considered in determining the relevancy of scientific evidence.”2 Id. at 417 . | 2 | 1996–2024 |
Green v. Franke
green
1 sentence2016But the Supreme Court indicated in Green that its formulation of the prejudice standard in that case, which involved a claim challenging counsel’s performance in a jury trial, might not apply to a claim challenging counsel’s performance in connection with the plea process, see Green, 357 Or at 323 , 323 n 13, and petitioner has presented no developed argument as to why or how the Green standard should apply in the plea context, or as to how the Green standard might differ in application from the Lafler /Frye standard in the plea context. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Clemente v. Blumenberg
green
2 sentences2015Specifically, the court in Clemente v. Blumenberg, 183 Misc 2d 923 , 705 NYS2d 792 (NY Sup Ct 1999), applied the Frye test. 2015Specifically, the court in Clemente v. Blumenberg, 183 Misc 2d 923 , 705 NYS2d 792 (NY Sup Ct 1999), applied the Frye test. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schultz v. Wells
green
2 sentences2015The Virginia Supreme Court in Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va 151, 475 SE2d 261 (1996), used a different set of factors than those used in Oregon to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. 24 Finally, the Colorado Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in Schultz v. Wells, 13 P3d 846 (Colo App 2000). 2015The Virginia Supreme Court in Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va 151, 475 SE2d 261 (1996), used a different set of factors than those used in Oregon to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. 24 Finally, the Colorado Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in Schultz v. Wells, 13 P3d 846 (Colo App 2000). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tittsworth v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2015The Virginia Supreme Court in Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va 151, 475 SE2d 261 (1996), used a different set of factors than those used in Oregon to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. 24 Finally, the Colorado Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in Schultz v. Wells, 13 P3d 846 (Colo App 2000). 2015The Virginia Supreme Court in Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va 151, 475 SE2d 261 (1996), used a different set of factors than those used in Oregon to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. 24 Finally, the Colorado Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in Schultz v. Wells, 13 P3d 846 (Colo App 2000). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Goldstein v. State
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 599-600 , 166 P.3d 387, 389-90 (2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erroneously admitted lidar-speed evidence because the state had failed to present evidence on the scientific validity of the technology); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (agreeing with the trial court's determination, following a Frye hearing, that "the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community," but also concluding that such a hearing was unnecessary because the defendant "effecti 2011See, e.g., State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 599-600 , 166 P.3d 387, 389-90 (2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erroneously admitted lidar-speed evidence because the state had failed to present evidence on the scientific validity of the technology); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (agreeing with the trial court's determination, following a Frye hearing, that "the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community," but also concluding that such a hearing was unnecessary because the defendant "effecti | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gentry
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. McMillan
green
2 sentences1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v 1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v 1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Palumbo
green
2 sentences1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v 1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Cooper v. Witkowski
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Howell v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Russell
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Maxwell v. Russi
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kirk v. Dutton
green
1 sentence1996Comey, et al., PCR Amplification and Typing of the HLA DQA Gene in Forensic Samples, 38 J Forensic Sciences 239 (1993) (study provides additional *271 support that the HLA DQA typing procedure is a valid procedure for typing forensic samples). 18 See, e.g., People v. Morganti, 43 Cal App 4th 643, 50 Cal Rptr 2d 837, rev den (1996); State v. Gentry, 125 Wash 2d 570, 888 P2d 1105 (1995), cert den 116 S Ct 131 (under Frye test); People v. McMillan, 213 Mich App 134 , 539 NW2d 553 (1995); State v. Russell, 125 Wash 2d 24, 882 P2d 747 (1994), cert den 115 S Ct 2004 (1995) (under Frye test); State v | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Garrett
green
2 sentences1995In holding the HGN test to be sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Frye test for the purpose of establishing the presence of alcohol in the blood, but not to establish a BAC of .10 percent or more, the Arizona Supreme Court found that several propositions had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community: *315 See also Garrett, 119 Idaho at 881 , 811 P2d at 491 (citing State v. Superior Court with approval, the Supreme Court of Idaho also ruled that the HGN test satisfies the Frye standard). *314 “(1) HGN occurs in conjunction with alcohol consumption; (2) its onset and distin 1995In holding the HGN test to be sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Frye test for the purpose of establishing the presence of alcohol in the blood, but not to establish a BAC of .10 percent or more, the Arizona Supreme Court found that several propositions had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community: *315 See also Garrett, 119 Idaho at 881 , 811 P2d at 491 (citing State v. Superior Court with approval, the Supreme Court of Idaho also ruled that the HGN test satisfies the Frye standard). *314 “(1) HGN occurs in conjunction with alcohol consumption; (2) its onset and distin | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1995In holding the HGN test to be sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Frye test for the purpose of establishing the presence of alcohol in the blood, but not to establish a BAC of .10 percent or more, the Arizona Supreme Court found that several propositions had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community: *315 See also Garrett, 119 Idaho at 881 , 811 P2d at 491 (citing State v. Superior Court with approval, the Supreme Court of Idaho also ruled that the HGN test satisfies the Frye standard). *314 “(1) HGN occurs in conjunction with alcohol consumption; (2) its onset and distin 1995In holding the HGN test to be sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Frye test for the purpose of establishing the presence of alcohol in the blood, but not to establish a BAC of .10 percent or more, the Arizona Supreme Court found that several propositions had gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community: *315 See also Garrett, 119 Idaho at 881 , 811 P2d at 491 (citing State v. Superior Court with approval, the Supreme Court of Idaho also ruled that the HGN test satisfies the Frye standard). *314 “(1) HGN occurs in conjunction with alcohol consumption; (2) its onset and distin | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Roland Addison, United States of America v. Albert Henry Raymond
green
2 sentences1984The Addison court wrote that the Frye test also guarantees that ‘a minimal reserve of experts exists who can critically examine the validity of a scientific determination in a particular case.’ [ 498 F.2d at 744 .] In addition, the California Supreme Court has noted that the Frye test ‘may well promote a degree of uniformity of decision. 1984The Addison court wrote that the Frye test also guarantees that ‘a minimal reserve of experts exists who can critically examine the validity of a scientific determination in a particular case.’ [ 498 F.2d at 744 .] In addition, the California Supreme Court has noted that the Frye test ‘may well promote a degree of uniformity of decision. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
DiMario v. United States
green
2 sentences1984In United States v. DeBetham, 470 F2d 1367 (9th Cir 1972), cert den 412 US 907 (1973), the defendant sought to introduce exculpatory polygraph evidence. 1984In United States v. DeBetham, 470 F2d 1367 (9th Cir 1972), cert den 412 US 907 (1973), the defendant sought to introduce exculpatory polygraph evidence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.