State v. Brewer

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is not required by ORS 161.450
• “The existence of a conspiracy, and its objective, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances and from the declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators.” (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Reed
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1973-12-17· cited 13×
• State v. Stout
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2018-04-19· cited 10×
• State v. Benton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-02-09· cited 5×
• Vernell Wigglesworth v. State of Oregon
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-03-09· cited 3×
• State v. Fancher
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1976-10-25· cited 3×
• State v. Martin-Thanislaus
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-05-15· cited 2×
• State v. Faccio
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1976-08-09

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Harris
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1965-09-08· cited 49×
• State v. Zauner
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-05-15· cited 45×
• State v. Brewer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1973-01-05· cited 6×
• State v. Muncey
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1973-01-05· cited 2×
• State v. Russell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1969-03-19· cited 1×