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 2 courts 1968–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2020During petitioner’s criminal trial, neither party suggested the fact that the trailer was stolen by Kenny should play a role in the jury’s analysis of whether petitioner entered or remained in the trailer unlawfully, and on appeal, neither party suggests the fact that the trailer was stolen by Kenny should play a role in our analysis of whether petitioner’s trial counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance caused him prejudice. *326 as to the first-degree burglary charge, because the jury could not have found petitioner guilty of that crime based on a “theory of criminal responsibility co | 1 | 1 |
Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.green1 sentence1991See Lingle v. Norge Division, Magic Chef, supra, 486 US at 413 n 12. | 1 | 1 |
Tehan v. United States Ex Rel. Shottgreen2 sentences1968Shott, 382 US 406, 415-416 , 86 S Ct 459 , 15 L ed2d 453, 459 (1966), Mr. Justice Stewart explained that “the basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution ‘shoulder the entire load.’ ” ③ In other cases the role of the privilege in safeguarding the individual’s right has been emphasized. 1968Shott, 382 US 406, 415-416 , 86 S Ct 459 , 15 L ed2d 453, 459 (1966), Mr. Justice Stewart explained that “the basic purposes that lie behind the privilege against self-incrimination do not relate to protecting the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserving the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution ‘shoulder the entire load.’ ” ③ In other cases the role of the privilege in safeguarding the individual’s right has been emphasized. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Munson v. Valley Energy Investment Fund, U. S., LP
green
1 sentence2026Instead, the defendant “must have deliberately reached out beyond its home by engaging in some act in the forum state,” and that act, or acts, “must create a substantial connection with the forum state and must have been created by the defendant himself.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Wiltse
green
2 sentences2025State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 11 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (when determining whether to exercise discretion for plain error review, one factor “can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it” (citing State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007)). 2025State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 11 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (when determining whether to exercise discretion for plain error review, one factor “can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it” (citing State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Fults
green
2 sentences2025State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 11 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (when determining whether to exercise discretion for plain error review, one factor “can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it” (citing State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007)). 2025State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 11 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (when determining whether to exercise discretion for plain error review, one factor “can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it” (citing State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Department of Human Services v. T. L.
green
1 sentence2016The court concluded that, “to preserve a claim of inadequate assistance of appointed trial 3 That statute, which plays a central role in our analysis, is set out below at 358 Or at 694 -95 n 13. 684 Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ramsey
green
1 sentence2015In Ramsey , we emphasized that, if a person uses self-help to recover specific personal property to which he has an honest claim of right, “the intent to commit theft does not exist.” 184 Or App at 472 -73 (citing State v. Martin, 15 Or App 498 , 516 P2d 753 (1973)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2015In Ramsey , we emphasized that, if a person uses self-help to recover specific personal property to which he has an honest claim of right, “the intent to commit theft does not exist.” 184 Or App at 472 -73 (citing State v. Martin, 15 Or App 498 , 516 P2d 753 (1973)). 2015In Ramsey , we emphasized that, if a person uses self-help to recover specific personal property to which he has an honest claim of right, “the intent to commit theft does not exist.” 184 Or App at 472 -73 (citing State v. Martin, 15 Or App 498 , 516 P2d 753 (1973)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lyons v. Pearce
green
1 sentence1987Where a statute purports to codify constitutional rights, it may be of assistance to examine the requirements of statute, see Stelts v. State of Oregon, 299 Or 252, 257-58 , 701 P2d 1047 (1985), but in Lyons we stated that ORS 135.425 “was intended to embody established professional ethics regarding the role of defense counsel in negotiated pleas.” 298 Or at 564 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Stelts v. State of Oregon
green
2 sentences1987Where a statute purports to codify constitutional rights, it may be of assistance to examine the requirements of statute, see Stelts v. State of Oregon, 299 Or 252, 257-58 , 701 P2d 1047 (1985), but in Lyons we stated that ORS 135.425 “was intended to embody established professional ethics regarding the role of defense counsel in negotiated pleas.” 298 Or at 564 . 1987Where a statute purports to codify constitutional rights, it may be of assistance to examine the requirements of statute, see Stelts v. State of Oregon, 299 Or 252, 257-58 , 701 P2d 1047 (1985), but in Lyons we stated that ORS 135.425 “was intended to embody established professional ethics regarding the role of defense counsel in negotiated pleas.” 298 Or at 564 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sinclair v. United States
red
2 sentences1968In Sinclair v. United States, 279 US 263, 292 , 49 S Ct 268 , 73 L ed 692 (1928), Mr. Justice Butler saw the privilege as reflecting the policy that the individual be left alone. 1968In Sinclair v. United States, 279 US 263, 292 , 49 S Ct 268 , 73 L ed 692 (1928), Mr. Justice Butler saw the privilege as reflecting the policy that the individual be left alone. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.