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 2002–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moen v. Petersongreen2 sentences2020“A court must analyze ret- roactivity only when considering whether to apply a newly announced rule in a given case.” Moen v. Peterson, 312 Or 503, 508 , 824 P2d 404 (1991). 2020“A court must analyze ret- roactivity only when considering whether to apply a newly announced rule in a given case.” Moen v. Peterson, 312 Or 503, 508 , 824 P2d 404 (1991). | 1 | 4 |
State v. McCaingreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., State v. McCain, 175 Or App 274 , 28 P2d 641 (2001) (a defendant who preserved issue in trial court obtained reversal on appeal based on the newly announced rule of law from Fleetwood although trial court’s ruling was consistent with case law that predated Fleetwood). | 1 | 1 |
Chester McCoy v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002In McCoy v. United States, 266 F3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir 2001), cert den, _ US _ , 153 L Ed 2d 183 (2002), the court stated: “Apprendi established a new rule of criminal procedure, one that was not dictated by precedent existing before the Apprendi decision was released. 2002In McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir.2001), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002), the court stated: " Apprendi established a new rule of criminal procedure, one that was not dictated by precedent existing before the Apprendi decision was released. | 1 | 1 |
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2002A new rule of law constitutes such a "watershed" when it "alter[s] our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements that must be found to vitiate the fairness of a particular conviction." Teague, 489 U.S. at 311 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). 2002A new rule of law constitutes such a "watershed" when it "alter[s] our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements that must be found to vitiate the fairness of a particular conviction." Teague, 489 U.S. at 311 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury
green
2 sentences2021To be sure, the Court in Harper took pains to explain that it had, in fact, applied a newly-announced rule to the parties retroactively in Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 US 803 , 109 S Ct 1500 , 103 L Ed 2d 891 (1989). 2021To be sure, the Court in Harper took pains to explain that it had, in fact, applied a newly-announced rule to the parties retroactively in Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 US 803 , 109 S Ct 1500 , 103 L Ed 2d 891 (1989). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ashbaugh
green
2 sentences2011Shortly after we issued that opinion, the Supreme Court reversed Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 , 244 P3d 360 (2010), and the state now contends that, under the Supreme Court’s newly announced framework, police did not stop defendant when they asked for his consent to search. 2011Shortly after we issued that opinion, the Supreme Court reversed Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 , 244 P3d 360 (2010), and the state now contends that, under the Supreme Court’s newly announced framework, police did not stop defendant when they asked for his consent to search. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Teague v. Palmateer
green
2 sentences2004As we discussed in Teague v. Palmateer, 184 Or App 577, 584-85 , 57 P3d 176 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 181 (2003), to be entitled to post-conviction relief, the petitioner must demonstrate both that the newly announced legal principle is to be applied retroactively and that the petitioner’s assertion of a claim based on that newly announced principle is not procedurally barred by issue preclusion under ORS 138.550(2). 2004As we discussed in Teague v. Palmateer, 184 Or App 577, 584-85 , 57 P3d 176 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 181 (2003), to be entitled to post-conviction relief, the petitioner must demonstrate both that the newly announced legal principle is to be applied retroactively and that the petitioner’s assertion of a claim based on that newly announced principle is not procedurally barred by issue preclusion under ORS 138.550(2). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Sawyer v. Smith
green
2 sentences2002That is, retroactive application is required where the newly announced principle represents a "watershed rule[ ] fundamental to the integrity of the criminal proceeding." Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990). 2002That is, retroactive application is required where the newly announced principle represents a "watershed rule[ ] fundamental to the integrity of the criminal proceeding." Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 229 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Osterback v. Ingram
green
2 sentences2002In McCoy v. United States, 266 F3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir 2001), cert den, _ US _ , 153 L Ed 2d 183 (2002), the court stated: “Apprendi established a new rule of criminal procedure, one that was not dictated by precedent existing before the Apprendi decision was released. 2002In McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir.2001), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002), the court stated: " Apprendi established a new rule of criminal procedure, one that was not dictated by precedent existing before the Apprendi decision was released. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Philistin v. Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence2002In McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir.2001), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 2362 , 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002), the court stated: " Apprendi established a new rule of criminal procedure, one that was not dictated by precedent existing before the Apprendi decision was released. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kellotat v. Cupp
green
2 sentences2002However, the cases to which the majority points in support of that proposition predate the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Griffith and Teague, in which the Court changed its approach to the question of retroactivity and determined that retroactivity depended on the type of proceeding rather than on the nature of the constitutional right. [4] For example, in Kellotat v. Cupp, 78 Or.App. 61 , 714 P.2d 1074 (1986), we addressed the propriety of retroactive application of a newly announced rule of law under *192 Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. 2002However, the cases to which the majority points in support of that proposition predate the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Griffith and Teague, in which the Court changed its approach to the question of retroactivity and determined that retroactivity depended on the type of proceeding rather than on the nature of the constitutional right. [4] For example, in Kellotat v. Cupp, 78 Or.App. 61 , 714 P.2d 1074 (1986), we addressed the propriety of retroactive application of a newly announced rule of law under *192 Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.