green
Positive treatment
3.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Laird v. Allstate Insurance
See Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289 , 291 n 1, 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002). 4 ORS 742.450(6) provides that a motor vehicle liability insurance policy “may exclude by name from coverage * * * any person other than the named insured” for specified reasons. 5 Throughout the policy, words that are expressly defined in the “definitions” sections of the policy, such as “you,” “your,” “resident,” and “motor vehicle,” are printed in bold.
discussed
Cited "see"
Larsen v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
See Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 297 , 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002) (noting that “the legislature has used the terms ‘prosecution’ and ‘criminal action’ interchangeably” in the statutes related to time limitations in criminal actions).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lindquist
See Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 298 , 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002) (stating that “prosecution,” within the meaning of ORS 131.135, refers to a criminal action).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. GRIERSON
Accordingly, the prosecution did not commence — at least, for limitation purposes 2 — until that appearance. *202 Id. at 317 ; see also Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289 , 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002) (previously dismissed indictment in a separate case is not sufficient to commence prosecution on a later indictment for purposes of ORS 131.135).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peters v. BELLEQUE
Custer v. Baldwin, 163 Or App 60, 64 , 986 P2d 1203 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000); see also Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 296-302 , 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002) (addressing whether the petitioner was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to raise a statute of limitations defense by determining the merits of that defense); Warren, 140 Or App at 333-34 (defense counsel was not constitutionally deficient in failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on basis of self-defense defense where that motion would not have succeeded).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Purdom
See also Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289 , 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75 , cert den, 537 US 901 (2002) (holding that the filing of an earlier indictment in a separate case did not constitute the commencement of a subsequent prosecution for purposes of ORS 131.135).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abbott
v.
Baldwin, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
v.
Baldwin, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
02-5212.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ABBOTT
v.
BALDWIN, SUPERINTENDENT, EASTERN OREGON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.
No. 02-5212.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON.
2
Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 178 Ore. App. 289, 36 P. 3d 516.