Oregon Supreme Court· 4/27/1995

State v. Fish

Citations

893 P.2d 1023
321 Or. 48
1995 Ore. LEXIS 30

How courts have described this case

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

losing party at trial may not argue on appeal issue that it did not argue before trial court
discussing the application of Article I, section 12, in the FST context
positing the same “cruel trilemma” for purposes of Article I, section 12
officer’s warning sufficient to advise defendant of consequences of refusing test under ORS 813.136, and defendant’s refusal therefore admissible under statute
officer's warning sufficient to advise defendant of consequences of refusing test under ORS 813.136, and defendant's refusal therefore admissible under statute
“the fact that a person refused or failed to perform field sobriety tests inferentially may communicate the person’s belief’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Unis, Gillette, Van Hoomissen Graber, Van Hoomissen, Graber

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.