6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Roble-Bakergreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44 , 136 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation); State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990) (so stating). 2015See, e.g., State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44 , 136 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation); State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990) (so stating). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Vondehngreen2 sentences2015This court observed that it had long held “that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements made without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 472 . 2015This court observed that it had long held “that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements made without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 472 . | 1 | 4 |
National Automobile Insurance v. Wintergreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44 , 136 P2d 22 (2006) (suppressing unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation); State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P3d 836 (1990) (so stating). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nessgreen1 sentence2007You know.” Given that the central issue in the case was whether the abuse occurred, we cannot say that there was little likelihood that the error in admitting Marley’s testimony, upon which the prosecutor later relied to question defendant’s truthfulness, affected “the jury’s all-important assessment of credibility.” State v. Irons, 162 Or App 512, 524 , 987 P2d 547 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 120 (2000); see also State v. Coen, 203 Or App 92, 102-03 , 125 P3d 761 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006) (holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shaffgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Shaff, 209 Or App 68, 72 , 146 P3d 389 (2006). 2007See, e.g., State v. Shaff, 209 Or App 68, 72 , 146 P3d 389 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coengreen2 sentences2007You know.” Given that the central issue in the case was whether the abuse occurred, we cannot say that there was little likelihood that the error in admitting Marley’s testimony, upon which the prosecutor later relied to question defendant’s truthfulness, affected “the jury’s all-important assessment of credibility.” State v. Irons, 162 Or App 512, 524 , 987 P2d 547 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 120 (2000); see also State v. Coen, 203 Or App 92, 102-03 , 125 P3d 761 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006) (holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without th 2007You know.” Given that the central issue in the case was whether the abuse occurred, we cannot say that there was little likelihood that the error in admitting Marley’s testimony, upon which the prosecutor later relied to question defendant’s truthfulness, affected “the jury’s all-important assessment of credibility.” State v. Irons, 162 Or App 512, 524 , 987 P2d 547 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 120 (2000); see also State v. Coen, 203 Or App 92, 102-03 , 125 P3d 761 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006) (holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without th | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44 , 136 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation); State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990) (so stating). 2015See, e.g., State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44 , 136 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation); State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990) (so stating). | 3 | 2010–2015 |
State v. Delong
green
2 sentences2015The principles of law that this court applied in Vondehn are highly pertinent to this case: “Since Magee, this court consistently has held that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements Cite as 357 Or 365 (2015) 401 made without the benefit of Miranda warnings. 2015The principles of law that this court applied in Vondehn are highly pertinent to this case: “Since Magee, this court consistently has held that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements Cite as 357 Or 365 (2015) 401 made without the benefit of Miranda warnings. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Magee
green
2 sentences2014The court explained that, since State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987), it consistently had held “that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements made without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 472 . 2014The court explained that, since State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987), it consistently had held “that the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of statements made without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 472 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Cram
green
2 sentences2010This court first considered the text of Article I, section 12, and its history in State v. Cram, 176 Or 577 , 160 P2d 283 (1945). 2010This court first considered the text of Article I, section 12, and its history in State v. Cram, 176 Or 577 , 160 P2d 283 (1945). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Irons
green
2 sentences2007You know.” Given that the central issue in the case was whether the abuse occurred, we cannot say that there was little likelihood that the error in admitting Marley’s testimony, upon which the prosecutor later relied to question defendant’s truthfulness, affected “the jury’s all-important assessment of credibility.” State v. Irons, 162 Or App 512, 524 , 987 P2d 547 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 120 (2000); see also State v. Coen, 203 Or App 92, 102-03 , 125 P3d 761 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006) (holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without th 2007You know.” Given that the central issue in the case was whether the abuse occurred, we cannot say that there was little likelihood that the error in admitting Marley’s testimony, upon which the prosecutor later relied to question defendant’s truthfulness, affected “the jury’s all-important assessment of credibility.” State v. Irons, 162 Or App 512, 524 , 987 P2d 547 (1999), rev den, 330 Or 120 (2000); see also State v. Coen, 203 Or App 92, 102-03 , 125 P3d 761 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006) (holding that admission of the defendant’s statement made in compelling circumstances and without th | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.