Woolard rule in Oregon

7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1973–1980 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Cloutiergreen or · 1979 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 2 sentences 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or. 45, 50-51 , 522 P.2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court" means "could properly be consolidated." [13] Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or. 232 , 484 P.2d 314 , 485 P.2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for p 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment	2	2
State v. Farrgreen orctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973State v. Farr, 8 Or App 78 , 492 P2d 305 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert denied 406 US 973 (1972), was a case involving a Woolard error in which no objection had been made in the trial court. 1973State v. Farr, 8 Or App 78 , 492 P2d 305 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert denied 406 US 973 (1972), was a case involving a Woolard error in which no objection had been made in the trial court.	1	1
State v. Fairgreen or · 1972 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973See, State v. Fair, 263 Or 383 , 502 P2d 1150 (1972). 1973See, State v. Fair, 263 Or 383 , 502 P2d 1150 (1972).	1	1

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 (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Leverich neutral or · 1974 2 sentences 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment	2	1980–1980
State v. Woolard green or · 1971 2 sentences 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment	2	1980–1980
State v. Woolard green or · 1971 2 sentences 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or. 45, 50-51 , 522 P.2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court" means "could properly be consolidated." [13] Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or. 232 , 484 P.2d 314 , 485 P.2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for p 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or 45, 50-51 , 522 P2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court” means "could properly be consolidated.” Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or 232 , 484 P2d 314 , 485 P2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for punishment	2	1980–1980
State v. Clark green · 1905 2 sentences 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or. 45, 50-51 , 522 P.2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court" means "could properly be consolidated." [13] Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or. 232 , 484 P.2d 314 , 485 P.2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for p 1980In State v. Leverich, 269 Or. 45, 50-51 , 522 P.2d 1390 (1974), we held that the Brown phrase "could have been tried in the same court" means "could properly be consolidated." [13] Although the dissenting judge in Cloutier disagreed with the result of our application of the principles in Cloutier and State v. Woolard, 259 Or. 232 , 484 P.2d 314 , 485 P.2d 1194 (1971), to penal objectives, he endorsed the approach: "[The pre Woolard rule] was a clear and workable rule and one which was based upon the assumption that it was the prerogative of the legislature to define crimes and to provide for p	2	1980–1980
State v. Meyer green orctapp · 1973 2 sentences 1974Finally, defendant asserts the court erred in not vacating the robbery conviction on the basis of the Woolard doctrine. ② Prior to imposition of sentence, defendant objected to being sentenced on both convictions, citing State, v. Meyer, 12 Or App 486 , 507 P2d 824 (1973). 1974Finally, defendant asserts the court erred in not vacating the robbery conviction on the basis of the Woolard doctrine. ② Prior to imposition of sentence, defendant objected to being sentenced on both convictions, citing State, v. Meyer, 12 Or App 486 , 507 P2d 824 (1973).	2	1973–1974
State v. Gilbert green or · 1978 2 sentences 1979That court nevertheless proceeded to examine the claim in the light of State v. Gilbert, 281 Or. 101 , 574 P.2d 313 (1978), which was decided after the state's confession of error. 1979That court nevertheless proceeded to examine the claim in the light of State v. Gilbert, 281 Or. 101 , 574 P.2d 313 (1978), which was decided after the state's confession of error.	1	1979–1979
State v. Welch green or · 1973 2 sentences 1973Affirmed. ① For a review oí cases in which the application of the Woolard rule has been discussed, see, State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973); State v. Meyer, 12 Or App 486 , 507 P2d 824 (1973). 1973Affirmed. ① For a review oí cases in which the application of the Woolard rule has been discussed, see, State v. Welch, 264 Or 388 , 505 P2d 910 (1973); State v. Meyer, 12 Or App 486 , 507 P2d 824 (1973).	1	1973–1973
Martinka v. Oregon green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 1973State v. Farr, 8 Or App 78 , 492 P2d 305 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert denied 406 US 973 (1972), was a case involving a Woolard error in which no objection had been made in the trial court.	1	1973–1973

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.505 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.515 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.505 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check