State v. Boots

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that Article I, section 10, “is directed only to unreasonable delay after a charge has been formally made” and that precharge delay is necessarily addressed under a due process analysis
• where the defendant presented no evidence of prejudice caused by preindictment delay or evidence that the state delayed deliberately in order to gain a tactical advantage, the defendant’s due process rights to a fair trial were not violated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Boots
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1989-09-26· cited 111×
• State v. Boots
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-03-25· cited 41×
• State v. Rodriguez-Castillo
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-01-24· cited 16×
• State v. Proctor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-01-11· cited 9×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-12-14· cited 7×
• State v. Vasquez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-10-31· cited 7×
• State v. Wimber
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-06-26· cited 1×
• State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Hallinen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-04-27

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Reyes
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1957-03-06· cited 88×
• Ellis v. Roberts
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1986-09-24· cited 52×
• State v. Hazelett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1972-01-06· cited 33×
• State v. Fish
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1978-04-18· cited 31×
• State v. Harwood
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-04-21· cited 30×
• State v. Dike
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1988-06-22· cited 9×
• State v. Proctor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-01-11· cited 9×
• State v. Bruno
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1980-11-28· cited 5×
• State v. Bruno
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1979-10-08· cited 3×
• State v. Schiff
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1988-10-05· cited 2×