State v. Allen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the delays that a defendant did not apply for or consent to are attributable to the state
• explaining that “‘sufficient reason’ under ORS 135.750 refers to conditions or circumstances that are distinct from those commonly associated with delays triggering the docket-regulating protections of [former] ORS 135.747”
• “[D]elays that a defendant did not apply for or consent to are attributable to the state”
• where state’s discovery violation necessitated continuance of omnibus hearing, the delay resulting from the continuance was attributable to the state
• “[W]here the state fails to show, on the record, that there was ‘good reason’ for a delay, the delay is deemed unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Driver
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-04-08· cited 22×
• State v. Davis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-06-23· cited 14×
• State v. Straughan
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-05-29· cited 13×
• State v. Blevins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-06-18· cited 6×
• State v. McGee
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-02-27· cited 5×
• State v. Ellis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-05-29· cited 3×
• State v. Cupp
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-07-24· cited 2×
• State v. Bircher
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-11-07· cited 1×
• State v. Barnes
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-02-03· cited 1×