advice warning in Oregon

2023Rather, the rule prohib- its a lawyer from either entering into “a business trans- action with a client or” knowingly acquiring a “pecuniary interest adverse to a client” without “first providing the advice that that rule requires and obtaining the necessary consent.” RPC 1.8(a) (emphasis added); Spencer, 355 Or at 686 .

2015The state responds that defendant may not use the affirmative defense because “the OMMA requires current diagnosis and advice from a patient’s attending physician for the lawful use of medical marijuana.” (Footnote omitted.) Because the dispute in this case centers on whether defendant met the requirements of ORS 475.319(1)(a), which was passed by initiative, our task is to determine the intent of the voters, using the methods outlined in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2015The state responds that defendant may not use the affirmative defense because “the OMMA requires current diagnosis and advice from a patient’s attending physician for the lawful use of medical marijuana.” (Footnote omitted.) Because the dispute in this case centers on whether defendant met the requirements of ORS 475.319(1)(a), which was passed by initiative, our task is to determine the intent of the voters, using the methods outlined in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2015The state responds that defendant may not use the affirmative defense because “the OMMA requires current diagnosis and advice from a patient’s attending physician for the lawful use of medical marijuana.” (Footnote omitted.) Because the dispute in this case centers on whether defendant met the requirements of ORS 475.319(1)(a), which was passed by initiative, our task is to determine the intent of the voters, using the methods outlined in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

2015The state responds that defendant may not use the affirmative defense because “the OMMA requires current diagnosis and advice from a patient’s attending physician for the lawful use of medical marijuana.” (Footnote omitted.) Because the dispute in this case centers on whether defendant met the requirements of ORS 475.319(1)(a), which was passed by initiative, our task is to determine the intent of the voters, using the methods outlined in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

1992I agree with the majority that, under Article I, section 12, the police, before interrogating a person in custody, must give the person the same advice or warnings that are required by the Fifth Amendment under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

1992I agree with the majority that, under Article I, section 12, the police, before interrogating a person in custody, must give the person the same advice or warnings that are required by the Fifth Amendment under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

1988Taking that view one step further, the dissent noted: "[I]t does not appear reasonable to conclude that when the legislature expressly provides that the effect of an officer's failing to advise a person of his or her choices and their consequences is to prohibit the state from suspending his or her license, the legislature, nevertheless, intended that if one is prevented from obtaining a lawyer's advice the test results must be excluded from evidence." State v. Scharf, supra, 288 Or. at 465-66 , 605 P.2d. 690 . *151 Less than two years later, the court overruled the specific holding in Scharf

1988Taking that view one step further, the dissent noted: "[I]t does not appear reasonable to conclude that when the legislature expressly provides that the effect of an officer's failing to advise a person of his or her choices and their consequences is to prohibit the state from suspending his or her license, the legislature, nevertheless, intended that if one is prevented from obtaining a lawyer's advice the test results must be excluded from evidence." State v. Scharf, supra, 288 Or. at 465-66 , 605 P.2d. 690 . *151 Less than two years later, the court overruled the specific holding in Scharf

1978The trial court held that the advice was insufficient under State v. Freymuller, 26 Or App 411, 413-14 , 552 P2d 867 (1976), where we said: "The legislature has expressed a policy in the Implied Consent Law, ORS 487.805 et seq, that potential defendants are not to be tricked or misled.

1978The trial court held that the advice was insufficient under State v. Freymuller, 26 Or App 411, 413-14 , 552 P2d 867 (1976), where we said: "The legislature has expressed a policy in the Implied Consent Law, ORS 487.805 et seq, that potential defendants are not to be tricked or misled.

1918Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329 ( 5 N. E. 275 , 55 Am.

1918Woodbury v. Woodbury, 141 Mass. 329 ( 5 N. E. 275 , 55 Am.