State v. Dunlap

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal
• “Compelling circumstances exist when, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, a rea- sonable person in the defendant’s position would feel com- pelled to answer a police officer’s questions.”
• defendant had an opportunity to refuse to consent to a search

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jepson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-12-19· cited 13×
• State v. Briggs
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-07-31· cited 8×
• State v. Fulmer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-07-01· cited 7×
• State v. Love-Faust
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-03-10· cited 7×
• State v. Zamora
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-09-29· cited 5×
• State v. Brock
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-12-19· cited 5×
• State v. D. P.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-10-30· cited 3×
• State v. Stevens
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-06-21· cited 2×
• State v. Yaeger
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-05-26· cited 2×
• State v. Reed
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-02-09· cited 2×
• State v. Hiner
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-12-29· cited 1×
• State v. Rader
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-10-15· cited 1×
• Nelson v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Servs. (In re Nelson)
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-08-14· cited 1×
• State v. N. J. D. A.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-09-28· cited 1×
• State v. Wammack
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-05-20
• State v. Canepa
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-07-14