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 2 courts 1987–2019 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. Davisgreen2 sentences2009Alluding to another case in which we limited the Turner rule, the state asserts that, in resentencing, the trial court had to apply the sentencing guidelines and Measure 11, so, “[f]or all practical purposes * * * the trial court had no discretion when imposing sentence, other than to determine the portion of the sentence which was to be consecutive to the federal sentence defendant was already serving.” See State v. Davis, 216 Or App 456, 470 , 174 P3d 1022 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 401 (2008) (Turner principle does not apply to resentencing when new sentence is legislatively mandated and trial 2009Alluding to another case in which we limited the Turner rule, the state asserts that, in resentencing, the trial court had to apply the sentencing guidelines and Measure 11, so, “[f]or all practical purposes * * * the trial court had no discretion when imposing sentence, other than to determine the portion of the sentence which was to be consecutive to the federal sentence defendant was already serving.” See State v. Davis, 216 Or App 456, 470 , 174 P3d 1022 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 401 (2008) (Turner principle does not apply to resentencing when new sentence is legislatively mandated and trial | 2 | 2 |
State v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2009See Davis, 216 Or App at 470 (Turner does not apply when imposition of the sentence on remand does not involve any exercise of judicial discretion); State v. Alvarez, 168 Or App 393, 396 , 7 P3d 616 , rev den, 331 Or 244 (2000) (Turner does not apply when the sentence originally imposed was unlawful). 2009See Davis, 216 Or App at 470 (Turner does not apply when imposition of the sentence on remand does not involve any exercise of judicial discretion); State v. Alvarez, 168 Or App 393, 396 , 7 P3d 616 , rev den, 331 Or 244 (2000) (Turner does not apply when the sentence originally imposed was unlawful). | 1 | 2 |
Texas v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 141-42 , 106 S.Ct. 976 , 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986) (allowing judge to consider newly learned information about defendant that involved acts committed by defendant before first sentencing proceeding; stating that to do otherwise could lead to "bizarre conclusion"). [9] The requirement of a statement of nonvindictive reasons is essentially the outcome for which the state advocates, although we impose it for reasons of judicial administration, rather than— as the state would have it—as a substitute prudential rule that somehow is "more fair." Defendant, f 2010See, e.g., Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 141-42 , 106 S.Ct. 976 , 89 L.Ed.2d 104 (1986) (allowing judge to consider newly learned information about defendant that involved acts committed by defendant before first sentencing proceeding; stating that to do otherwise could lead to "bizarre conclusion"). [9] The requirement of a statement of nonvindictive reasons is essentially the outcome for which the state advocates, although we impose it for reasons of judicial administration, rather than— as the state would have it—as a substitute prudential rule that somehow is "more fair." Defendant, f | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is 2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Dillavou v. Fostergreen2 sentences2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is 2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is | 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. Stockman
neutral
2 sentences2010Because Turner was a case involving a retrial rather than a resentencing, defendant also relied on a Court of Appeals decision — State v. Stockman, 43 Or App 235 , 603 P2d 363 (1979) — that held that the Turner rule applied when a case was remanded after a successful appellate challenge to a sentence on grounds other than excessiveness. 2010Because Turner was a case involving a retrial rather than a resentencing, defendant also relied on a Court of Appeals decision — State v. Stockman, 43 Or App 235 , 603 P2d 363 (1979) — that held that the Turner rule applied when a case was remanded after a successful appellate challenge to a sentence on grounds other than excessiveness. | 2 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Partain
neutral
2 sentences2019While we had defendant’s appeal under advisement, the state petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of our decision applying the Turner rule in State v. Partain, 228 *141 Or App 329 , 208 P3d 526 (2009). 2019While we had defendant’s appeal under advisement, the state petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of our decision applying the Turner rule in State v. Partain, 228 *141 Or App 329 , 208 P3d 526 (2009). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is 2010See State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319 , 324 n 8, 541 P2d 811 (1975) (to deny defendant who appeals credit for time spent in jail pending appeal effectively penalizes the defendant for appealing and, thus, violates rule of Turner)-, State v. Holmes, 287 Or 613, 617-19 , 601 P2d 1213 (1979) (Turner rule precluding imposition of more lengthy sentence after successful appeal and retrial does not apply in the context of a probation revocation proceeding); State v. Martin, 288 Or 643, 645-47 , 607 P2d 171 (1980) (consistent with principle announced in Turner, defendant whose conviction is | 1 | 2010–2010 |
G. L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Without some such premise, the court has no grounds to reverse a well-established rule beside judicial fashion or personal policy preference, which are not sufficient grounds for such a change.” G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988) (citations omitted). 5 The state has not expressly directed its analysis to any of those three “premises.” Instead, the state’s primary objections to the Turner rule are that it is “too restrictive,” “too unwieldy,” and that it is not required by this state’s constitutional or statutory law. 2010Without some such premise, the court has no grounds to reverse a well-established rule beside judicial fashion or personal policy preference, which are not sufficient grounds for such a change.” G.L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., 306 Or 54, 59 , 757 P2d 1347 (1988) (citations omitted). 5 The state has not expressly directed its analysis to any of those three “premises.” Instead, the state’s primary objections to the Turner rule are that it is “too restrictive,” “too unwieldy,” and that it is not required by this state’s constitutional or statutory law. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Trask v. Butler
green
1 sentence1999The court determines first whether there is an “intent to benefit” the plaintiff, considering the following: “(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to benefit the plaintiff; “(2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; “(3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; “(4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury; “(5) the policy of preventing future harm; and “(6) the extent to which the profession would be unduly burdened by a finding of liability.” 123 Wash 2d at 843, 872 P2d at 1084 . 3 Plaintiff urges us to adopt the | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Moeller v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1999The court determines first whether there is an “intent to benefit” the plaintiff, considering the following: “(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to benefit the plaintiff; “(2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; “(3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; “(4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury; “(5) the policy of preventing future harm; and “(6) the extent to which the profession would be unduly burdened by a finding of liability.” 123 Wash 2d at 843, 872 P2d at 1084 . 3 Plaintiff urges us to adopt the 1999The court determines first whether there is an “intent to benefit” the plaintiff, considering the following: “(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to benefit the plaintiff; “(2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; “(3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; “(4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury; “(5) the policy of preventing future harm; and “(6) the extent to which the profession would be unduly burdened by a finding of liability.” 123 Wash 2d at 843, 872 P2d at 1084 . 3 Plaintiff urges us to adopt the | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences1987We were attempting, by the quoted language, only to identify the question that had to be answered in analyzing the statute. 2 The Turner analysis begins with the proposition that the word “sexual” is not the key term, but is instead only “an included illustrative term of the word ‘intimate.’ ” 33 Or App at 160 . 1987We were attempting, by the quoted language, only to identify the question that had to be answered in analyzing the statute. 2 The Turner analysis begins with the proposition that the word “sexual” is not the key term, but is instead only “an included illustrative term of the word ‘intimate.’ ” 33 Or App at 160 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.