Case law

State v. Shaw

338 Or. 586 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

purports to limit the trial court’s authority under OEC 403 to exclude relevant, but prejudicial, evidence of a defendant’s other crimes to only those circumstances when exclusion is constitutionally required, OEC 404(4) clearly … qualifies as an evi-dentiary change in the law that favors only the prosecution by making the conviction of a defendant more likely.

Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.

114 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1923

define the character or extent of riparian rights, but obviously the protection of the statutes extended to and included all those rights recognized in the decisions of this court as belonging to riparian proprietors. *233 Clearly … That act expressly excluded from such appropriation waters, tbe title and right to tbe use of which was vested in riparian proprietors, but authorized any qualified corporate appropriators desiring to acquire such riparian

State v. Smith

301 Or. 681 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1986

Where the Miranda -type warnings were not given, the burden fully remains on the state to establish that the confession was voluntary. … The policy of the statutes clearly is independent of the common-law rule excluding "involuntary" confessions.

Strasser v. State of Oregon

368 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2021

Finally, the state rejects petitioner’s assertion that, in these circum- stances, he need not establish prejudice from counsel’s inef- fective performance at all. … In their com- mentary on section 15 of the Act (Or Laws 1959, ch 636, § 15), now codified at ORS 138.550, Collins and Neil clearly distinguish the preclusion rules that apply under subsec- tions (1) and (2): “Under

State v. Unger

356 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2014

Smith, 327 Or 366, 379, 963 P2d 642 (1998) (“This court *  * clearly has rejected that deterrence ratio- *  nale as foreign to the Oregon search and seizure provision, holding, instead, that the Oregon exclusionary … establishes a but-for relationship between an unconstitutional act and the evidence to be suppressed, the state may prove to the contrary: “[A]fter a defendant establishes the existence of a mini- mal factual nexus—that

State v. Unger

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2014

Smith, 327 Or 366, 379, 963 P2d 642 (1998) (“This court *  * clearly has rejected that deterrence ratio- *  nale as foreign to the Oregon search and seizure provision, holding, instead, that the Oregon exclusionary … establishes a but-for relationship between an unconstitutional act and the evidence to be suppressed, the state may prove to the contrary: “[A]fter a defendant establishes the existence of a mini- mal factual nexus—that

Law v. Zemp

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2018

The companies initially sought to establish, through a declaration by Zemp’s business advisor, that Zemp had no personal ownership interest in any of the com- panies. … Thus, it appears to us that the authority to issue orders “that the judgment debtor might have made” is qualified by the phrase “that the circumstances of the case may require.”

Law v. Zemp

Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2018

The companies initially sought to establish, through a declaration by Zemp’s business advisor, that Zemp had no personal ownership interest in any of the com- panies. … Thus, it appears to us that the authority to issue orders “that the judgment debtor might have made” is qualified by the phrase “that the circumstances of the case may require.”

In Re Water Rights of Deschutes River

134 Or. 623 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1929

“Use of water by any one, in a legal sense, is always qualified by the condition that it must be restricted to such quantity and time of employment only, as may be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of some useful … clearly defined by many court decisions.