State v. Harris

How courts have described this case

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

• alleged “prejudicial surplus-age” did not prejudice the defendant; certain phrases in indictment were not unconstitutionally vague; ORICO is not unconstitutionally overbroad
• allegations following “to-wit” clauses were not prejudicial surplus-age

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Lyons
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-07-07· cited 24×
• State v. Courtier
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-04-12· cited 7×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Plowman
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-08-27· cited 123×
• State v. Moeller
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-02-06· cited 84×
• State v. Moeller
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-08-29· cited 81×
• State v. Fair
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1998-03-05· cited 24×
• State v. Fair
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-12-04· cited 14×
• State v. Romig
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1985-05-22· cited 12×
• State v. Harris
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-11-04· cited 12×
• State v. Standard
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1962-10-24· cited 11×
• State v. Harris
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-02-11· cited 1×