420A.203
Eligibility for second look; report to sentencing court; hearing; disposition. (1)(a) This section and ORS
420A.206 apply only to a person who:
(A) Was under 18
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the person
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, who committed the offense on or after
June 30, 1995, and who was:
(i) Sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of at least 24 months following waiver under ORS
419C.349 (1)(b), 419C.352, 419C.364 or 419C.370; or
(ii) Sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of at least 24 months under ORS 137.707 or 137.712; or
(B)(i) Was under
18 years of age at the time of the commission of all offenses for which the
person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment;
(ii) Is in the
physical custody of the Oregon Youth Authority; and
(iii) Has a
projected release date, as determined by the Department of Corrections, that
falls on or after the person’s 25th birthday and before the person’s 27th
birthday.
(b) When a person
described in paragraph (a)(A) of this subsection has served one-half of the
sentence imposed or when a person described in paragraph (a)(B) of this
subsection attains 24 years and six months of age, the sentencing court shall
determine what further commitment or disposition is appropriate as provided in
this section. As used in this subsection and subsection (2) of this section, “sentence
imposed” means the total period of mandatory incarceration imposed for all
convictions resulting from a single prosecution or criminal proceeding not
including any reduction in the sentence under ORS 421.121 or any other statute.
(2)(a) No more
than 120 days and not less than 60 days before the date on which a person has
served one-half of the sentence imposed or attains 24 years and six months of
age, the Oregon Youth Authority or the Department of Corrections, whichever has
physical custody of the person, shall file in the sentencing court a notice and
request that the court set a time and place for the hearing required under this
section. The youth authority or department shall serve the person with a copy
of the notice and request for hearing on or before the date of filing.
(b) Upon
receiving the notice and request for a hearing under paragraph (a) of this
subsection, the sentencing court shall schedule a hearing for a date not more
than 30 days after the date on which the person will have served one-half of
the sentence imposed or attains 24 years and six months of age, or such later
date as is agreed upon by the parties.
(c) The court
shall notify the following of the time and place of the hearing:
(A) The person
and, if the person is under 18 years of age, the person’s parents;
(B) The records
supervisor of the correctional institution in which the person is incarcerated;
and
(C) The district
attorney who prosecuted the case.
(d) The court
shall make reasonable efforts to notify the following of the time and place of
the hearing:
(A) The victim
and, if the victim is under 18 years of age, the victim’s parents or legal
guardian; and
(B) Any other
person who has filed a written request with the court to be notified of any
hearing concerning the transfer, discharge or release of the person.
(e)
Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection, the court may delay the
hearing for good cause.
(3) In a hearing
under this section:
(a) The person
and the state are parties to the proceeding.
(b) The person
has the right to appear with counsel. If the person requests that the court
appoint counsel and the court determines that the person is financially
eligible for appointed counsel at state expense, the court shall order that
counsel be appointed.
(c) The district
attorney represents the state.
(d) The court
shall determine admissibility of evidence as if the hearing were a sentencing
proceeding.
(e) The court may
consider, when relevant, written reports of the Oregon Youth Authority, the
Department of Corrections and qualified experts, in addition to the testimony
of witnesses. Within a reasonable time before the hearing, as determined by the
court, the person must be given the opportunity to examine all reports and
other documents concerning the person that the state, the Oregon Youth
Authority or the Department of Corrections intends to submit for consideration
by the court at the hearing.
(f) Except as
otherwise provided by law or by order of the court based on good cause, the
person must be given access to the records maintained in the person’s case by
the Oregon Youth Authority and the Department of Corrections.
(g) The person
may examine all of the witnesses called by the state, may subpoena and call
witnesses to testify on the person’s behalf and may present evidence and
argument. The court may permit witnesses to appear by telephone or other
two-way electronic communication device.
(h) The hearing
must be recorded.
(i) The hearing
and the record of the hearing are open to the public.
(j) The question
to be decided is which of the dispositions provided in subsection (4) of this
section should be ordered in the case.
(k) The person
has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the person has
been rehabilitated and reformed, and if conditionally released, the person
would not be a threat to the safety of the victim, the victim’s family or the
community and that the person would comply with the release conditions.
(4)(a) At the
conclusion of the hearing and after considering and making findings regarding
each of the factors in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the court shall order
one of the following dispositions:
(A) Order that
the person serve the entire remainder of the sentence of imprisonment imposed,
taking into account any reduction in the sentence under ORS 421.121 or any
other statute, with the person’s physical custody determined under ORS 137.124,
420.011 and 420A.200.
(B) Order that
the person be conditionally released under ORS 420A.206 at such time as the
court may order, if the court finds that the person:
(i) Has been
rehabilitated and reformed;
(ii) Is not a
threat to the safety of the victim, the victim’s family or the community; and
(iii) Will comply
with the conditions of release.
(b) In making the
determination under this section, the court shall consider:
(A) The
experiences and character of the person before and after commitment to the
Oregon Youth Authority or the Department of Corrections;
(B) The person’s
juvenile and criminal records;
(C) The person’s
mental, emotional and physical health;
(D) The gravity
of the loss, damage or injury caused or attempted, during or as part of the
criminal act for which the person was convicted and sentenced;
(E) The manner in
which the person committed the criminal act for which the person was convicted
and sentenced;
(F) The person’s
efforts, participation and progress in rehabilitation programs since the person’s
conviction;
(G) The results
of any mental health or substance abuse treatment;
(H) Whether the
person demonstrates accountability and responsibility for past and future
conduct;
(I) Whether the
person has made and will continue to make restitution to the victim and the
community;
(J) Whether the
person will comply with and benefit from all conditions that will be imposed if
the person is conditionally released;
(K) The safety of
the victim, the victim’s family and the community;
(L) The
recommendations of the district attorney, the Oregon Youth Authority and the
Department of Corrections; and
(M) Any other
relevant factors or circumstances raised by the state, the Oregon Youth
Authority, the Department of Corrections or the person.
(5) The court
shall provide copies of its disposition order under subsection (4) of this
section to the parties, to the records supervisor of the correctional
institution in which the person is incarcerated and to the manager of the
institution-based records office of the Department of Corrections.
(6) The person or
the state may appeal an order entered under this section. On appeal, the
appellate court’s review is limited to claims that:
(a) The
disposition is not authorized under this section;
(b) The court
failed to comply with the requirements of this section in imposing the
disposition; or
(c) The findings
of the court are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(7) A person
described in subsection (1)(a)(B) of this section may waive a hearing under
this section. [1995 c.422 §53; 1997 c.727 §15; 2001 c.962 §99; 2019 c.634 §22]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
State v. Link, 441 P.3d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Link, 441 P.3d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “105 are unique to aggravated murder and *672 no other crime in Oregon can permit their imposition. In addition to the substantive crime and associated sentence, two other statutes are implicated when a juvenile, as opposed to an adult, is charged with aggravated murder: waiver…”
State v. Walraven, 385 P.3d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “In July 2013, while his post-conviction appeal was pending, defendant filed a motion under ORS 420A.203 for a second-look hearing. 1 The state opposed the motion, arguing that defendant’s conviction for aggravated murder and corresponding sentence of 30 years to life rendered…”
Walraven v. Premo, 372 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “A person who was tried as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile and who has served one-half of his term of imprisonment is entitled, under ORS 420A.203, to a “second-look hearing” to determine whether he “has been rehabilitated and reformed, and [whether,] if conditionally…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 15× “Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
Hardegger v. Amsberry, 473 P.3d 576 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “105, thereby denying consideration of youth by the sentencing court; (3) the defendant was denied any second-look hearing, which is afforded to other juvenile offenders and which provides them an opportunity for conditional release rather than completion of their orig- inal…”
State v. Cid, 500 P.3d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“707 and (2) failing to clarify that defendant was eligible for a “Second Look hearing” pursuant to “ORS 420A.203, ORS 420A.206, 1 The state dismissed two additional counts of first-degree sodomy (Counts 3 and 4).”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 420A.203(4)(a) (in the context of “second look” hearings for juveniles convicted in adult court, the court shall order a disposition “after considering and making findings” regarding the factors enumerated in that statute) (emphasis added).”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 15× “Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 33× “The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
State v. Cid, 545 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 6× “707 are eligible for a second-look hearing and potential condi- tional release under ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.206: “(1) When a person waived under ORS 419C.”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
· cites it 34× “The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(1) — 1 case
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(1)(a) — 3 cases
Hardegger v. Amsberry, 473 P.3d 576 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“105, thereby denying consideration of youth by the sentencing court; (3) the defendant was denied any second-look hearing, which is afforded to other juvenile offenders and which provides them an opportunity for conditional release rather than completion of their orig- inal…”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(1)(a)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Link, 441 P.3d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“105 are unique to aggravated murder and *672 no other crime in Oregon can permit their imposition. In addition to the substantive crime and associated sentence, two other statutes are implicated when a juvenile, as opposed to an adult, is charged with aggravated murder: waiver…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Cid, 545 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“707 are eligible for a second-look hearing and potential condi- tional release under ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.206: “(1) When a person waived under ORS 419C.”
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(2)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(2)(b) — 2 cases
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(3) — 2 cases
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(3)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(3)(k) — 5 cases
Walraven v. Premo, 372 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person who was tried as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile and who has served one-half of his term of imprisonment is entitled, under ORS 420A.203, to a “second-look hearing” to determine whether he “has been rehabilitated and reformed, and [whether,] if conditionally…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4) — 5 cases
State v. Walraven, 385 P.3d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In July 2013, while his post-conviction appeal was pending, defendant filed a motion under ORS 420A.203 for a second-look hearing. 1 The state opposed the motion, arguing that defendant’s conviction for aggravated murder and corresponding sentence of 30 years to life rendered…”
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(a) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“ORS 420A.203(4)(a) (in the context of “second look” hearings for juveniles convicted in adult court, the court shall order a disposition “after considering and making findings” regarding the factors enumerated in that statute) (emphasis added).”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(a)(B) — 6 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Cid, 545 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“707 are eligible for a second-look hearing and potential condi- tional release under ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.206: “(1) When a person waived under ORS 419C.”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b)(D) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b)(F) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b)(H) — 3 cases
Walraven v. Premo, 372 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“A person who was tried as an adult for crimes committed as a juvenile and who has served one-half of his term of imprisonment is entitled, under ORS 420A.203, to a “second-look hearing” to determine whether he “has been rehabilitated and reformed, and [whether,] if conditionally…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(4)(b)(K) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(6) — 3 cases
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015).
“The sentencing court held a second look hearing on September 11 and 12, 2014, pursuant to ORS 420A.203. The court determined that conditional release was the appropriate disposition, entered a preliminary order of conditional release, and directed the Department of Corrections…”
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(6)(a) — 1 case
State v. Walraven, 428 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(6)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
State v. Garcia, 336 Or. App. 241 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Defendant, who had previously been convicted as a juvenile of attempted first-degree robbery, attempted first- degree assault, and unlawful use of a weapon, appeals the trial court’s order denying him conditional release under the “second look” statute, ORS 420A.203. Reviewing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 420A.203(a)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Cid, 545 P.3d 1278 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“707 are eligible for a second-look hearing and potential condi- tional release under ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.206: “(1) When a person waived under ORS 419C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.