State v. Borck, 221 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Borck, 221 P.3d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Marshall (orctapp, 2013-01-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Marshall
Or. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord State v. Baker/ Jay, 232 Or App 112, 128 , 221 P3d 749 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 280 (2010) (applying a reasonable person standard to limitations on the scope of consent and explaining that “[o]nce the facts have been determined, the scope of consent is a question of law”); see also Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487-88 , 443 P2d 261 (1968) (“[W]e are not bound by a trial judge or jury’s finding of voluntariness if we believe the historical facts upon which such finding is based are insufficient to meet constitutional standards.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Russell Patrick BORCK, Defendant-Appellant.
CR050689 A134423.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Nov 25, 2009.
221 P.3d 749
Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Jason E. Thompson, Salem and Ferder Casebeer French & Thompson, LLP, for petition.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion affirming his convictions on various crimes. State v. Borck, 230 Or.App. 619, 216 P.3d 915 (2009). Although we reject without discussion defendant's substantive contentions in support of his petition, we allow reconsideration for the limited purpose of modifying and correcting one aspect of our quotation of the trial court's operative ruling, as set out at 230 Or.App. at 629, 216 P.3d 915. Specifically, in the fourth paragraph of our quotation of the trial court's ruling, which begins "[The letters] do show * * *," the two references to "[M]" in that paragraph should, instead, read "[J]."

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.