State v. Cordova

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “we have been scrupulously rigorous in our construction of the terms of inventory policies”
• invalidating an inventory policy that required officers to open all “‘closed containers that could contain valuables’” (emphasis in Cordova)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Hite
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-11-05· cited 7×
• State v. Cleland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-12-20· cited 6×
• State v. Cruz-Renteria
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-06-27· cited 4×
• State v. Jansen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-02-12
• State v. Hockersmith
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-08-06

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Atkinson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-09-25· cited 164×
• State v. Ridderbush
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1984-12-19· cited 39×
• State v. Guerrero
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-07-11· cited 17×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-04-15· cited 11×
• State v. Eldridge
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-08-16· cited 9×
• State v. Keady
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-08-11· cited 7×
• State v. Brown
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-07-01· cited 6×
• State v. Nordloh
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-09-27· cited 6×
• State v. Swanson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-05-08· cited 6×
• State v. Kay
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-04-08· cited 5×
• State v. Stone
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-12-09· cited 4×
• State v. Hanna
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-03-14· cited 2×