Oregon Supreme Court· 6/5/1979

State v. Hull

Citations

595 P.2d 1240
286 Or. 511
1979 Ore. LEXIS 972

How courts have described this case

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

erroneous instruction that witness was defendant’s accomplice, in context in which it was given, did not amount to directed verdict that defendant was guilty
erroneous instruction that witness was defendant's accomplice, in context in which it was given, did not amount to directed verdict that defendant was guilty
in prosecution for theft of an animal “[i]t is immaterial whose property the animal was, as long as it was the property of someone other than [the] defendants” (citing ORS 164.015 and ORS 135.725)
in prosecution for theft of an ani- mal “[i]t is immaterial whose property the animal was, as long as it was the property of someone other than [the] defen- dants” (citing ORS 164.015 and ORS 135.725)
emphasis in Oatney; internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted
emphasis in Oatney; internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Linde

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.