Right; justice. | Lat. Right; justice; the divine law. 3 Bl. Comm. 2; Calvin.
Oregon Supreme Court Court Cases
Timothy J. Vanagas, Gresham, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response were Lawrence I. Evans, and Michael S. Evans of Grenley, Rotenberg, Laskowski, Evans & Bragg, P.C., Portland.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: BOLI 03-89 CA A51280 SC S39897
State v. Gaines (2009)Defendant was convicted of obstructing governmental or judicial administration based on her oral refusal to cooperate in being photographed after she was arrested and lodged in a county jail. Under ORS 162.235(1), a person commits the offense of obstructing governmental or judicial administration if he or she "intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental or judicial function by means of intimidation, force, physical or economic interference or [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: S055031
State v. Kennedy (1983)Convicted of theft, defendant obtained a reversal in the Court of Appeals because his trial followed a mistrial brought on by what the court described as "flagrant overreaching" by the prosecutor. 49 Or. App. 415, 418, 619 P.2d 948 (1980). After this court denied review, 290 Or. 551 (1981), the state obtained a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the decision insofar as it rested on prior double jeopardy and due process clauses of the [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC 79-12-34399 CA 17729 SC 29394
Ball v. Gladden (1968)
Petitioner filed a post-conviction relief proceeding to set aside his conviction of second degree murder for killing his wife. He appeals from a judgment, rendered after a hearing, which denied him relief and dismissed his petition.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it decided this case on an issue that was neither preserved in the trial court nor raised in appellant's opening brief on appeal. We hold that it did err and, accordingly, reverse.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC A8704 02489, CA A60011 SC S37666
This is an action for damages for negligence and strict liability. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The dispositive question is whether a 1995 amendment to ORCP 47 C permits entry of a summary judgment for defendants on this record. We agree with the Court of Appeals that defendants are not entitled to a summary judgment, although we disagree with its reason for reaching that conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm the [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC 9304-02799 CA A84036 SC S43153
State v. Stevens (1991)
Janet A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on respondent's brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Cynthia A. Carter and Brenda J. Peterson, Asst. Attys. Gen.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC CM88020368, SC S35888
State v. Brown (1990)
Brenda J. Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. Diane S. Lefkow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the brief for respondent. With them on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Timothy A. Sylwester and Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salem.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC C87-12-36938/SC S35743
State v. Ehly (1993)
Janet A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With her on the response to the petition were Charles S. Crookham, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Jas. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC 89-CR-0958-TM CA A63346 SC S38790
State v. Robertson (1982)The issue to be decided is the constitutional validity of a statute creating and defining the crime of "coercion." Defendants were indicted under one subsection of the statute, ORS 163.275(1)(e), which makes it a crime to compel or induce another person to engage in conduct from which he has the legal right to abstain by causing him to fear the disclosure of discreditable assertions about some person. Defendants demurred on the ground that the terms of the statute are too vague for a penal [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC 10-80-07971 CA 19337 SC 28280 TC 10-80-07969 CA 19338 SC 28281
State v. Owens (1986)
Stephen Peifer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review/petitioner on review. On the petition for review was Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., and Christine Chute, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC 85-05-0972 CA A36677 SC S32804, SC S32811
John C. Caldwell, of Hibbard, Caldwell, Bowerman, Schultz & Hergert, Oregon City, filed a brief amici curiae on behalf of North Clackamas School Dist. No. 12 and Oregon City School Dist. No. 62. With him on the brief was Nancy S. Tauman, Oregon City.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC A8212-07615 CA A34098 SC S32918
State v. Middleton (1983)
Defendant contends that his daughter's prior consistent statements of details of her rape and testimony by social workers stating that the daughter's reaction to the rape was typical of such a victim were improperly admitted in his jury trial for rape, and appeals his conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 58 Or. App. 447, 648 P.2d 1296. We also affirm.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CA A21064 SC 28916
State v. Davis (1983)
Defendant was convicted of Possession of a Controlled Substance and being an Exconvict in Possession of a Firearm. He seeks to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry and search of his motel room and search of his person after arrest. This case presents for our consideration the permissible limits of police conduct undertaken upon at most a reasonable suspicion but without probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a crime.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CA A23060, SC 28881
State v. Hitz (1988)Defendant appealed her conviction of a knowing unlawful misapplication of entrusted property, ORS 165.095(1), claiming that the trial court should have entered a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence that the alleged misapplication was unlawful. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on grounds that defendant "did not preserve the argument in the trial court." 92 Or. App. 136, 139, 757 P.2d 448 (1988). Not having previously examined the elements of this statute, we allowed [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC 451260 CA A46356 SC S35480
Nees v. Hocks (1975)
In this court the defendants sought to have us re-examine the evidence. As we have so often stated, we cannot reweigh the evidence and if there is any evidence to support the verdict of the jury, we must affirm.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
State v. Warner (1978)Defendant was convicted by a jury of Robbery in the First Degree after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police in a warrantless search of his person and automobile. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in State v. Warner, 30 Or. App. 117, 566 P.2d 546 (1977), affirmed the conviction. We allowed defendant's petition for review to consider, in general, the application of some of the statutory and constitutional rules concerning "street encounters" [...]
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: TC 76-1050-C CA 7784 SC 25562
E. Joseph Dean of Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Mervin W. Brink of Brink, Moore, Brink & Peterson, Hillsboro.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CC 76-219 SC 25383
Jennifer Friesen and Henry H. Drummonds, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the petition was Kulongoski, Heid, Durham & Drummonds, Eugene. On the briefs was Henry H. Drummonds of Kulongoski, Heid, Durham & Drummonds, Eugene.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CA 12102 SC 26542
State v. Caraher (1982)
The issue in this case is whether a search of defendant's purse, including the opening of the coin compartment of a wallet within that purse, conducted without a warrant, after defendant was arrested and placed in a police car and the purse had been taken from her, is a search incident to arrest and therefore an exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: CA A20330 SC 28360