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.
6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Godfrey
neutral
2 sentences2024Cf. State v. Godfrey, 263 Or App 562, 563 , 328 P3d 823 (2014) (concluding that, when a defendant failed to appear for trial and was convicted of traffic offenses by default judgment, the proper procedure was for the defendant to “(1) From a proceeding in justice court or municipal court, as provided in ORS 138.057 for appeals of violations. “(2) From a proceeding in circuit court, as provided in ORS chapter 19, except that the standard of review is the same as for an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding involving a misdemeanor or felony.” 6 ORS 138.057 provides, in part: “(1)(a) * * * If a 2024Cf. State v. Godfrey, 263 Or App 562, 563 , 328 P3d 823 (2014) (concluding that, when a defendant failed to appear for trial and was convicted of traffic offenses by default judgment, the proper procedure was for the defendant to “(1) From a proceeding in justice court or municipal court, as provided in ORS 138.057 for appeals of violations. “(2) From a proceeding in circuit court, as provided in ORS chapter 19, except that the standard of review is the same as for an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding involving a misdemeanor or felony.” 6 ORS 138.057 provides, in part: “(1)(a) * * * If a | 3 | 2024–2024 |
City of Lowell v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2019It argues that the statute is inapplicable in light of our decision in City of Lowell v. Wilson , 197 Or. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Bainbridge
green
2 sentences2014When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” 2 State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stating the standard of review for an appeal involving the offense of driving through a safety zone, ORS 811.030) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2014When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the violation had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” 2 State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or App 500, 502 , 216 P3d 338 (2009) (stating the standard of review for an appeal involving the offense of driving through a safety zone, ORS 811.030) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Paragon
green
2 sentences2009We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the [violation] had been proved” by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265, 267 , 97 P3d 691 (2004). 2009We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the [violation] had been proved” by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265, 267 , 97 P3d 691 (2004). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.