conducted hearing in Oregon

2022Mother’s Child Support Worksheet, admitted into evidence by the court, calculated father’s presumptive Cite as 321 Or App 751 (2022) 753 monthly child support obligation to be $614.

2022That analysis was extended to probation revocation in Gagnon. 411 US at 782 .

2022In Morrissey, the Court conducted that analysis in the context of parole revocation. 408 US at 488-89 .

2012Defendant was charged with DUII and refusing to take a breath test. 3 Before his trial on those charges, defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his refusal to take the breath test, arguing that, because he could not understand English, he was not “informed” of the consequences of refusing the breath test under ORS 813.130, and, therefore, evidence of his refusal was not admissible against him at his trial. 4 The trial court conducted a hearing on the matter, but ultimately concluded that it was bound by the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Nguyen, 107 Or App 716 , 813 P2d 569 (1991).

2012Defendant was charged with DUII and refusing to take a breath test. 3 Before his trial on those charges, defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his refusal to take the breath test, arguing that, because he could not understand English, he was not “informed” of the consequences of refusing the breath test under ORS 813.130, and, therefore, evidence of his refusal was not admissible against him at his trial. 4 The trial court conducted a hearing on the matter, but ultimately concluded that it was bound by the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Nguyen, 107 Or App 716 , 813 P2d 569 (1991).

1982Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 US 368, 383 , 99 S Ct 2898 , 61 L Ed 2d 608 (1979); State ex rel Oregonian Pub.

1982Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 US 368, 383 , 99 S Ct 2898 , 61 L Ed 2d 608 (1979); State ex rel Oregonian Pub.

1970While Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 , 10 ALR3d 974 (1966), deals with a custodial, station-house interrogation, it has been construed to govern all custodial interrogation by police and, in effect, renders admissions and confessions of criminal defendants inadmissible in the absence of proof, not only that the appropriate advice of rights was given, but that the advice was understood and the waiver of the rights embodied in the advice was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 384 US, supra, at 444. ① *133 When the defendant objected to the introduction into evide

1970While Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 , 10 ALR3d 974 (1966), deals with a custodial, station-house interrogation, it has been construed to govern all custodial interrogation by police and, in effect, renders admissions and confessions of criminal defendants inadmissible in the absence of proof, not only that the appropriate advice of rights was given, but that the advice was understood and the waiver of the rights embodied in the advice was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 384 US, supra, at 444. ① *133 When the defendant objected to the introduction into evide

1970While Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 , 10 ALR3d 974 (1966), deals with a custodial, station-house interrogation, it has been construed to govern all custodial interrogation by police and, in effect, renders admissions and confessions of criminal defendants inadmissible in the absence of proof, not only that the appropriate advice of rights was given, but that the advice was understood and the waiver of the rights embodied in the advice was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 384 US, supra, at 444. ① *133 When the defendant objected to the introduction into evide

1970While Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 , 10 ALR3d 974 (1966), deals with a custodial, station-house interrogation, it has been construed to govern all custodial interrogation by police and, in effect, renders admissions and confessions of criminal defendants inadmissible in the absence of proof, not only that the appropriate advice of rights was given, but that the advice was understood and the waiver of the rights embodied in the advice was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 384 US, supra, at 444. ① *133 When the defendant objected to the introduction into evide

1911Co., 65 Tex. 324 , 330: “Who may attend before the master is determined upon the most enlightened and liberal principles of abstract justice.