State v. Gates

How courts have described this case

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

• “To reach [its] conclusions that the indictment was defective the court had to rely on facts not appearing on the face of the indictment. It follows that the demurrer should not have been sustained. ORS 135.630.”
• \To reach [its] conclusions that the indictment was defective the court had to rely on facts not appearing on the face of the indictment. It follows that the demurrer should not have been sustained. ORS 135.630.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Kurtz
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-06-16· cited 26×
• State v. Cervantes
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-12-23· cited 19×
• State v. Gyenes
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-06-23· cited 4×
• State v. Bishop
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-06-16· cited 3×
• State v. Excel Logging Co.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1988-02-10

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• State v. Routh
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1977-09-12· cited 12×