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 3 courts 1983–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swarthout v. Cookegreen2 sentences2017See Swarthout, 562 US at 219 (describing the two-stage inquiry under the Due Process Clause). 2017See Swarthout, 562 US at 219 (describ- ing the two-stage inquiry under the Due Process Clause). | 2 | 2 |
Huffman v. Leon De Mendozagreen2 sentences2016See ORS 419B.824(6); see also Huffman v. Leon de Mendoza, 135 Or App 680, 684-85 , 899 P2d 734 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (describing a similar two-stage inquiry for validity of service by publication pursuant to ORCP 7 D). 2016See ORS 419B.824(6); see also Huffman v. Leon de Mendoza, 135 Or App 680, 684-85 , 899 P2d 734 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996) (describing a similar two-stage inquiry for validity of service by publication pursuant to ORCP 7 D). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evitts v. Lucey
green
2 sentences2017Nevertheless, petitioner’s theory is reminiscent of the reasoning that led the United States Supreme Court to conclude in Evitts that, if a state grants a right to appeal criminal convictions, then the Due Process Clause precludes the state from denying that right on the basis of appointed 30 Haynes v. Board of Parole counsel’s failure to meet a deadline. 469 US at 396 . 2017Nevertheless, petitioner’s theory is reminiscent of the reasoning that led the United States Supreme Court to conclude in Evitts that, if a state grants a right to appeal criminal convictions, then the Due Process Clause precludes the state from denying that right on the basis of appointed counsel’s failure to meet a deadline. 469 US at 396 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State Ex Rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Stillman
green
2 sentences2022State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145 , 36 P3d 490 , 495- 96 (2001). 2022State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145 , 36 P3d 490 , 495- 96 (2001). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Classen
green
2 sentences1984State v. Classen, 285 Or 221 , 590 P2d 1198 (1979), provides for a two-stage test for determining whether a challenged identification is admissible. 1984State v. Classen, 285 Or 221 , 590 P2d 1198 (1979), provides for a two-stage test for determining whether a challenged identification is admissible. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
1 sentence1983The court upheld the admission of the testimony, setting forth a two-stage analysis: (1) a finding that the hearsay declarant is unavailable; and (2) a finding that the statements possess “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” 448 US at 66 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.