green
Positive treatment
Trending · 74 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 8×
19.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…cherry-picked quotations from single legislators or of nonlegislator witnesses, are likely to be given little weight, as the likelihood that such scraps of legislative history represent the views of the institution as a whole is slim.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2015–2016 ·
…he more clearly the history speaks to the meaning of the disputed terms in issue, the more weight the history will be accorded.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schwartz v. Washington County
cherry-picked quotations from single legislators or of nonlegislator witnesses, are likely to be given little weight, as the likelihood that such scraps of legislative history represent the views of the institution as a whole is slim.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schwartz v. Washington County
cherry-picked quotations from single legislators or of nonlegislator witnesses, are likely to be given little weight, as the likelihood that such scraps of legislative history represent the views of the institution as a whole is slim.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Nicholson
he more clearly the history speaks to the meaning of the disputed terms in issue, the more weight the history will be accorded.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. J. C. N.-V.
he more clearly the history speaks to the meaning of the disputed terms in issue, the more weight the history will be accorded.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Driver & Motor Vehicles Services Division
in some cases, the legislative history - however clearly it may express the legislature's intentions - is worth precisely nothing, because the text of the statute is capable of one, and only one, reasonable construction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Murr
hen the state dismisses one charging instrument but subsequently files another, the prosecution commences with the second charging instrument and, thus, serves as the starting point for calculating the relevant delay for purposes of ors 135.747.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Pipkin
evidence establishing 77 either an impairment of a physical condition or substantial pain will support an assault conviction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. KUPERUS
cherry-picked quotations from single legislators or of nonlegislator witnesses are likely to be given little weight, as the likelihood that such scraps of legislative history represent the views of the institution as a whole is slim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Childress v. Board of Psychology
See State v. Kelly, 229 Or App 461, 467 , 211 P3d 932 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (observing that, “[i]n the case of nonlegis- lator statements, courts tend to be more wary, but do accord them some weight when the nonlegislators sponsored the legislation and who, as a result, are in a good position to describe its purpose and intended effect”); State v. Worth, 274 Or App 1, 38-42 , 360 P3d 536 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016) (relying on statements of a representative of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, which sponsored the bill and whose comments were consistent with statement…
discussed
Cited "see"
Childress v. Board of Psychology
See State v. Kelly, 229 Or App 461, 467 , 211 P3d 932 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (observing that, “[i]n the case of nonlegis- lator statements, courts tend to be more wary, but do accord them some weight when the nonlegislators sponsored the legislation and who, as a result, are in a good position to describe its purpose and intended effect”); State v. Worth, 274 Or App 1, 38-42 , 360 P3d 536 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 667 (2016) (relying on statements of a representative of the Oregon District Attorneys Association, which sponsored the bill and whose comments were consistent with statement…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hollins
See State v. Briggs, 229 Or App 660, 666 , 212 P3d 1276 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (concluding that at 2:00 a.m., in an area where drug dealing was common, officers had reasonable suspicion after observ- ing defendant hand something to bicyclists from his car and then drive away when officers approached, while the bicy- clists departed in different directions); State v. Loud, 149 Or App 250, 252-55 , 942 P2d 814 , rev den, 326 Or 58 (1997) (rea- sonable suspicion to investigate a drug crime when defen- dant had a brief visit with a suspicious, unidentified person in an area known for drug sa…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Krieger
See State v. Bayer, 229 Or App 267, 281 , 211 P3d 327 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (concluding that, even if the delay was “substantially greater than average,” the defendant did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brasher's Cascade Auto Auction, Inc. v. Leon
See State v. Kelly, 229 Or App 461, 468 , 211 P3d 932 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (noting that legislatures often enact “very broadly worded statutes” intended to address more issues than those which precipitated a particular bill).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Coulson
(3×)
See State v. Bayer, 229 Or App 267, 277 , 211 P3d 327 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ellis
Id. at 551-52 ; see also State v. Bayer, 229 Or App 267, 278 , 211 P3d 327 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (where state cited the defendant for DUII, dismissed citation, and then filed an information charging DUII, the defendant was “charged” for speedy trial purposes when the information was filed).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Glazier
See, e.g., State v. Jones, 229 Or App 734, 738-39 , 212 P3d 1292 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (heavy scrape was significant and was capable of disrupting the ordinary function of the skin); State v. Hart, 222 Or App 285, 291 , 193 P3d 42 (2008) (one-half inch gash on back of victim’s head was legally sufficient evidence of “impairment of physical condition”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. LINH THAT CAM TON
Cunningham, 232 Or App at 146-47 (holding that a 15-month delay, of which four months were unexplained, was reasonable); see also State v. Bayer, 229 Or App 267, 279 , 211 P3d 327 , rev den, 347 Or 446 (2009) (holding that a nine-month delay, of which 20 days were requested by the defendant and the remaining time was for routine delays, was reasonable); Dixon, 224 Or App at 75-76 (holding that a 14-month delay, of which six were due to routine delays and eight were due to lack of judicial resources, was reasonable).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
SMITH.
v.
SMITH.
S057848.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Dec 23, 2009.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (8)
Petition for review denied.