criminal prosecution violation (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

criminal prosecution violation in Oregon

6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2012 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)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Warnergreen
orctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

11
State v. O'Keygreen
or · 1995 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

11
State v. Coopergreen
orctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
1 sentence

1994Id. at 505 (De Muniz, J., dissenting). 1 We allowed the state’s petition for review to determine the proper interpretation of the second exception stated in OEC 615, which is quoted, in relevant part, above. 2 The *166 state is a party in a criminal prosecution for violation of state crimes.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Balderson green
orctapp · 1996
2 sentences

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

12012–2012
State v. Chipman green
orctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

2012See State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 634 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (using ORS 813.160(1) “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement); State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284, 294 , 31 P3d 478 (2001); State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 , 535 n 1, 910 P2d 1138 (1996); see also State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 293 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (in the case of legislative recognition, there is no need for the court to determine scientific reliability).

12012–2012
State v. Kendall green
orctapp · 1989
1 sentence

2006Indeed, the lack of a written waiver of trial by jury in a criminal prosecution is error apparent on the face of the record and warrants a new trial under State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den, 308 Or 382 (1989).

12006–2006
State v. Kendall green
orctapp · 1989
1 sentence

2006Indeed, the lack of a written waiver of trial by jury in a criminal prosecution is error apparent on the face of the record and warrants a new trial under State v. Kendall, 96 Or App 735 , 773 P2d 1362 , rev den, 308 Or 382 (1989).

12006–2006
State v. Hardt green
orctapp · 1986
2 sentences

2001For example, in State v. Hardt, 81 Or App 607 , 726 P2d 953 , adhered to on recons 83 Or App 221 , 730 P2d 1278 (1986), rev den 303 Or 74 (1987), we held that, in a criminal prosecution for a violation of an habitual traffic offender (HTO) order issued by the Motor Vehicles Division, a defendant was entitled to challenge the basis of that order.

2001For example, in State v. Hardt, 81 Or App 607 , 726 P2d 953 , adhered to on recons 83 Or App 221 , 730 P2d 1278 (1986), rev den 303 Or 74 (1987), we held that, in a criminal prosecution for a violation of an habitual traffic offender (HTO) order issued by the Motor Vehicles Division, a defendant was entitled to challenge the basis of that order.

12001–2001
State v. Fritz green
orctapp · 1987
2 sentences

2001Id. at 609. 5 See also State v. Fritz, 85 Or App 1, 4 , 735 P2d 1228 (1986), rev den 303 Or 700 (1987) (“a defendant in a driving while revoked prosecution can attack the convictions underlying the HTO order”).

2001Id. at 609. 5 See also State v. Fritz, 85 Or App 1, 4 , 735 P2d 1228 (1986), rev den 303 Or 700 (1987) (“a defendant in a driving while revoked prosecution can attack the convictions underlying the HTO order”).

12001–2001
State v. Hardt green
orctapp · 1986
2 sentences

2001For example, in State v. Hardt, 81 Or App 607 , 726 P2d 953 , adhered to on recons 83 Or App 221 , 730 P2d 1278 (1986), rev den 303 Or 74 (1987), we held that, in a criminal prosecution for a violation of an habitual traffic offender (HTO) order issued by the Motor Vehicles Division, a defendant was entitled to challenge the basis of that order.

2001For example, in State v. Hardt, 81 Or App 607 , 726 P2d 953 , adhered to on recons 83 Or App 221 , 730 P2d 1278 (1986), rev den 303 Or 74 (1987), we held that, in a criminal prosecution for a violation of an habitual traffic offender (HTO) order issued by the Motor Vehicles Division, a defendant was entitled to challenge the basis of that order.

12001–2001
People v. Hawkins green
calappdeptsuper · 1942
1 sentence

1963People v. Hawkins, 51 Cal App 2d 779, 781, 124 P2d 691, 692 .

11963–1963
State v. Billups neutral
or · 1912
2 sentences

1949In State v. Billups, 63 Or. 277 , 127 P. 686 , Justice Moore, speaking for the court, returned to the normal rule as stated by him in Roesch v. Henry, supra, as follows: “Each legal voter in a precinct is entitled to have the requisite number of election notices posted therein, at least 12 days prior to the day of election, in order to render a majority vote in favor of prohibition valid, if a failure in this respect would probably affect the result in the entire county.” (Citing the Roesch case.) The Billups case was a criminal prosecution for the violation of a local option law.

1949In State v. Billups, 63 Or. 277 , 127 P. 686 , Justice Moore, speaking for the court, returned to the normal rule as stated by him in Roesch v. Henry, supra, as follows: “Each legal voter in a precinct is entitled to have the requisite number of election notices posted therein, at least 12 days prior to the day of election, in order to render a majority vote in favor of prohibition valid, if a failure in this respect would probably affect the result in the entire county.” (Citing the Roesch case.) The Billups case was a criminal prosecution for the violation of a local option law.

11949–1949

Where else courts name it

AL 20 (1983–2026) NY 16 (1889–2024) OH 15 (1982–2026) CA 10 (1915–2022) TX 7 (1970–2017) IL 6 (1892–1992) GA 6 (1968–1998) OR 6 (1949–2012) PA 5 (1936–2025) NC 5 (1917–2017) MN 4 (1910–2015) WA 4 (1985–2001) VA 3 (1995–2009) IN 3 (1978–1989) VT 3 (1988–2018) UT 3 (1929–1967) IA 2 (1919–1986) FL 2 (1984–1985) LA 2 (1964–1981) TN 2 (1997–2013) AR 2 (1941–1988) MI 2 (1886–1972) OK 2 (1927–1976) HI 2 (1979–1983) NJ 2 (1962–1969) MS 2 (1988–1991) MD 2 (1980–1983)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check