Court of Appeals of Oregon· 5/3/1989
State v. Gill
Citations
- 772 P.2d 957
- 96 Or. App. 358
- 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 502
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- trial court must consider the benefits and detriments of a particular sanction
- trial court must consider the benefits and detriments of a particular sanction
- preclusion was erroneous where “the trial court made no inquiry as to whether the prejudice claimed by the state could be cured by an interview with the witness, a brief recess in the trial or a post-ponement”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Graber, Riggs, Edmonds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. GirardCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-04-03· cited 13×
- State v. LindquistCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-05-15· cited 12×
- State v. JohanesenCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-12-18· cited 8×
- State v. BenCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-07-26· cited 6×
- State v. DivitoCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-02-25· cited 5×
- State v. WyattCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-07-15· cited 2×
- State v. DillardCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1990-03-07· cited 2×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.