"[A] cashier's check is equivalent to cash."
How later courts described this case
- "[A] cashier's check is equivalent to cash."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*387 HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
The dissent complains that the majority “repudiates without explanation” our prior decision on the “essential issue” in this case. See 175 Or App at 387 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). I was one of the judges who joined in our original majority opinion, State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589 , 963 P2d 65 (1998), and I have, in fact, “switched sides.” There is an explanation: When faced with new and ultimately compelling arguments, judges can, and should, change their minds.
In Amini I, we referred, collaterally, to federal precedent. See 154 Or App at 596-99 . However, because we did not reach the federal constitutional issues, we had no occasion to focus on, and grapple with, the principles that drive the majority’s analysis. I believe that analysis is unanswerable. Accordingly, I concur.