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.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2026 3 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. Clydegreen1 sentence2026As such, defendant is subject to retrial.” Id. at 227 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. Ackley
green
2 sentences2023Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 633 , 523 P3d 86 (2022). 2023Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 633 , 523 P3d 86 (2022). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Jones v. Brown
green
2 sentences2023Relying on Jones v. Brown, 370 Or 649 , 652 n 2, 523 P3d 82 (2022), the superintendent nevertheless asks us to affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief on petitioner’s third and ninth claims for post-conviction relief (fourth and fifth assignments of error on appeal) because “resolution of [those] claims for relief could implicate all petitioner’s convictions, including those that arose from unanimous verdicts[.]” The Oregon Supreme Court recently concluded that a conviction obtained in violation of the jury unanimity rule constitutes a “substantial denial” of a constitutional right 2023Relying on Jones v. Brown, 370 Or 649 , 652 n 2, 523 P3d 82 (2022), the superintendent nevertheless asks us to affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief on petitioner’s third and ninth claims for post-conviction relief (fourth and fifth assignments of error on appeal) because “resolution of [those] claims for relief could implicate all petitioner’s convictions, including those that arose from unanimous verdicts[.]” The Oregon Supreme Court recently concluded that a conviction obtained in violation of the jury unanimity rule constitutes a “substantial denial” of a constitutional right | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1984They argued that counsel should be afforded in any offense for which imprisonment potentially could be imposed. 5 See Rudstein, The Collateral Use of Uncounseled Misdemeanor Convictions after Scott and Baldasar, 34 U Fla L Rev 517 (1982), for a review of state court interpretations. 6 The reason for prohibition on collateral use of prior uncounseled felonies is expressed in Burgett as follows: “To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, [ 372 US 335 , 83 S Ct 792 , 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963)] to be used against a person either to support guilt or enhance punishment for ano 1984They argued that counsel should be afforded in any offense for which imprisonment potentially could be imposed. 5 See Rudstein, The Collateral Use of Uncounseled Misdemeanor Convictions after Scott and Baldasar, 34 U Fla L Rev 517 (1982), for a review of state court interpretations. 6 The reason for prohibition on collateral use of prior uncounseled felonies is expressed in Burgett as follows: “To permit a conviction obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, [ 372 US 335 , 83 S Ct 792 , 9 L Ed 2d 799 (1963)] to be used against a person either to support guilt or enhance punishment for ano | 2 | 1973–1984 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences1984Worse yet, since the defect in the prior conviction was denial of the right to counsel, the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of that Sixth Amendment right.” (Citation omitted.) 389 US at 115 . 7 Judge Buttler dissented in State v. Wright, 63 Or App 482 , 664 P2d 1131 (1983). 1984Worse yet, since the defect in the prior conviction was denial of the right to counsel, the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of that Sixth Amendment right.” (Citation omitted.) 389 US at 115 . 7 Judge Buttler dissented in State v. Wright, 63 Or App 482 , 664 P2d 1131 (1983). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Burgett v. Texas
green
1 sentence1984Worse yet, since the defect in the prior conviction was denial of the right to counsel, the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of that Sixth Amendment right.” (Citation omitted.) 389 US at 115 . 7 Judge Buttler dissented in State v. Wright, 63 Or App 482 , 664 P2d 1131 (1983). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Huffman
green
2 sentences1958In State v. Huffman, 207 Or 372 , 297 P2d 831 , we held in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brand that such a remedy (properly called a “motion in the nature of coram nobis”) is available as a means of obtaining relief in a limited class of cases “from a conviction obtained in violation of constitutional right.” 207 Or at 394 . 1958In State v. Huffman, 207 Or 372 , 297 P2d 831 , we held in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brand that such a remedy (properly called a “motion in the nature of coram nobis”) is available as a means of obtaining relief in a limited class of cases “from a conviction obtained in violation of constitutional right.” 207 Or at 394 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Ex parte Tice
green
2 sentences1956In State v. Rathie and in Huffman v. Alexander no reference was made to the case of Ex parte Tice, 32 Or 179 , 49 P 1038 . 1956In State v. Rathie and in Huffman v. Alexander no reference was made to the case of Ex parte Tice, 32 Or 179 , 49 P 1038 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.