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 3 courts 1926–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lambert v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Peacegreen2 sentences2018Joseph , 277 Or. 223 , 229, 560 P.2d 262 (1977) ("A party whose peremptory challenges have not been exhausted is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to a juror who afterwards serves on the panel."). 2018Joseph , 277 Or. 223 , 229, 560 P.2d 262 (1977) ("A party whose peremptory challenges have not been exhausted is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to a juror who afterwards serves on the panel."). | 2 | 3 |
Mount v. Welshgreen2 sentences2020See Mount, 118 Or at 578-79 . 114 Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist. of the action of the court in overruling his challenge for cause to any particular juror who afterwards served on the panel.” Id. at 545 (emphasis added). 2018Joseph , 277 Or. 223 , 229, 560 P.2d 262 (1977) ; Mount v. Welsh et al. , 118 Or. 568 , 579, 247 P. 815 (1926) ; State v. Humphrey , 63 Or. 540 , 128 P. 824 (1912). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mannixgreen2 sentences2016Joseph, 277 Or 223, 229 , 560 P2d 262 (1977) (“A party whose peremptory challenges have not been exhausted is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to a juror who afterwards serves on the panel.”); see also State v. Mannix, 263 Or App 162, 172 , 326 P3d 1236 (2014) (“A long and unbroken series of Oregon appellate cases establishes that ‘[t]he erroneous overruling of a good challenge for cause, thereby compelling the use of a peremptory challenge, is not prejudicial error where it does not appear that the challenger was compelled to accept an objectionable j 2016Joseph, 277 Or 223, 229 , 560 P2d 262 (1977) (“A party whose peremptory challenges have not been exhausted is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to a juror who afterwards serves on the panel.”); see also State v. Mannix, 263 Or App 162, 172 , 326 P3d 1236 (2014) (“A long and unbroken series of Oregon appellate cases establishes that ‘[t]he erroneous overruling of a good challenge for cause, thereby compelling the use of a peremptory challenge, is not prejudicial error where it does not appear that the challenger was compelled to accept an objectionable j | 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. Humphrey
green
2 sentences1926The rule in this jurisdiction is announced by an opinion of Mr. Justice Burnett in State v. Humphrey, 63 Or. 540 ( 128 Pac. 824 ), where he clearly states that, until a defendant’s peremptory challenges are exhausted, he is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to any particular juror who afterwards serves on the panel. 1926The rule in this jurisdiction is announced by an opinion of Mr. Justice Burnett in State v. Humphrey, 63 Or. 540 ( 128 Pac. 824 ), where he clearly states that, until a defendant’s peremptory challenges are exhausted, he is not in a position to complain of the overruling of his challenge for cause to any particular juror who afterwards serves on the panel. | 3 | 1926–2018 |
State v. Worth
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 77-79 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.