Oregon Supreme Court· 3/21/1991

State v. Carlson

Citations

808 P.2d 1002
311 Or. 201
1991 Ore. LEXIS 22

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because there was no evidence that “police coerced or pressured defendant to answer questions”
concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because there was no evidence that ‘police coerced or pressured defendant to answer questions’
holding that the preponderance standard applies in deciding preliminary questions of fact under OEC 104(1)
holding that the preponderance standard applies in deciding preliminary questions of fact under OEC 104(1)
concluding that circumstances were not compelling, in part, because there was no evidence that ‘police coerced or pressured defendant to answer questions’
holding that trial court “is to use the preponderance standard in deciding preliminary questions of fact under OEC 104(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Graber, Unis, Gillette

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

92 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Carlson

117 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.