State v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a 16-month delay is “greater than what would be expected to resolve a misdemeanor charge”
• explaining that the record must demonstrate how an overcrowded docket contributes to delay
• explaining that “for limitations on judicial resources to justify pretrial delay, the record in a case must demon- strate precisely how an overcrowded docket contributed to the period of delay at issue” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Wendt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-12-31· cited 8×
• State v. Burkette
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-12-02· cited 3×
• State v. Storkus
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-12-30· cited 1×

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Johnson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2005-08-04· cited 87×
• State v. Adams
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2005-08-04· cited 51×
• State v. GLUSHKO
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2011-11-10· cited 38×
• State v. Myers
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-02-11· cited 27×
• State v. Garcia
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-08-30· cited 27×
• State v. Myers
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-04-22· cited 20×
• State v. Straughan
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-05-29· cited 13×
• State v. Peterson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-09-26· cited 12×
• State v. Garner
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-10-24· cited 10×
• State v. Cunningham
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-11-18· cited 9×
• State v. Dixon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-11-19· cited 8×
• State v. Blevins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-06-18· cited 6×
• State v. Neal
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-01-29· cited 2×
• State v. Maynard
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-02-25· cited 1×