Oregon Supreme Court· 6/30/2011
State v. Davis
Citations
- 256 P.3d 1075
- 350 Or. 440
- 2011 Ore. LEXIS 520
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that, at common law, police deception did not automatically ren- der a confession involuntary
- stating that our goal in applying that three- part analysis “is to ascertain the meaning most likely understood by those who adopted the provision”
- noting that the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel is not limited to critical stages of criminal prosecutions
- stating that our goal in applying that three- part analysis “is to ascertain the meaning most likely understood by those who adopted the provision”
- noting that the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel is not limited to critical stages of criminal prosecutions
- observing that “[i]t could be argued” that Spencer “is difficult to reconcile” with the text and his- torical context of Article I, section 11
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Landau
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Elliott v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 2019-02-18· cited 196×
- Couey v. AtkinsOregon Supreme Court· 2015-07-16· cited 118×
- State v. MansorOregon Supreme Court· 2018-06-28· cited 85×
- Horton v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOregon Supreme Court· 2016-05-05· cited 82×
- State v. LaneOregon Supreme Court· 2015-08-06· cited 55×
- State v. McAnultyOregon Supreme Court· 2014-10-30· cited 53×
- State v. MillsOregon Supreme Court· 2013-10-17· cited 48×
- State v. CopelandOregon Supreme Court· 2013-07-25· cited 41×
- State v. Prieto-RubioOregon Supreme Court· 2016-04-07· cited 31×
- State v. WardOregon Supreme Court· 2020-10-29· cited 30×
- State v. Avila-NavaOregon Supreme Court· 2014-12-26· cited 28×
- State v. SwanOregon Supreme Court· 2018-06-21· cited 26×
- State v. HemenwayOregon Supreme Court· 2013-01-10· cited 23×
- State v. SagdalOregon Supreme Court· 2015-01-15· cited 22×
- State v. PowellOregon Supreme Court· 2012-07-19· cited 21×
- State v. Schiller-MunnemanOregon Supreme Court· 2016-06-30· cited 21×
- State v. NicholsOregon Supreme Court· 2017-03-02· cited 19×
- State v. BoydOregon Supreme Court· 2016-09-22· cited 17×
- Jewell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 2011-11-30· cited 13×
- State v. Chavez-MezaCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-12-18· cited 11×
Cites
45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 8,442×
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1932-11-07· cited 4,979×
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1886-02-01· cited 3,820×
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court· 1986-03-10· cited 3,339×
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1964-05-18· cited 3,189×
- Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1972-06-07· cited 3,001×
- Brewer v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 1977-05-16· cited 2,626×
- McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1991-06-13· cited 1,818×
- United States v. GouveiaSupreme Court· 1984-05-29· cited 1,098×
- United States v. AshSupreme Court· 1973-06-21· cited 868×
- Iowa v. TovarSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 747×
- Rothgery v. Gillespie CountySupreme Court· 2008-06-23· cited 442×
- State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court· 1990-05-10· cited 205×
- Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court· 1992-10-22· cited 177×
- State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court· 1981-10-27· cited 146×
- State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court· 1988-02-17· cited 145×
- State v. SparklinOregon Supreme Court· 1983-11-29· cited 122×
- State v. Roble-BakerOregon Supreme Court· 2006-05-25· cited 111×
- State v. TerryOregon Supreme Court· 2001-12-28· cited 88×
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.