State v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the state’s evidence of the colloquy between the parties and the court during docket calls and testimony from the docketing clerk was sufficient to justify the state-caused delay due to a lack of available judges
• reasoning that a delay of 17.5 months would not “roughly equal” a two-year statute of limitations, but concluding that, in any event, the relevant limitations period was four years
• 17.5-month delay attributable to the state on misdemeanor offenses did not require dismissal where each portion of the delay was reasonable
• 17.5 months of net uncon-sented delay, 10 months of which were attributed to lack of judicial resources
• failure of defendant to renew speedy trial objection on the date of trial required, under the circumstances, an earlier ending point for calculation of the period of delay under ORS 135.747
• failure of defendant to renew speedy trial objection on the date of trial required, under the circumstances, an earlier ending point for calculation of the period of delay under ORS 135.747

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Davis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-06-23· cited 14×
• 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. Wendt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-12-31· cited 8×
• State v. Doak
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-05-19· cited 6×
• State v. Abregano.
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2015-12-11· cited 6×
• State v. Coburn
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-12-12· cited 3×
• State v. Ellis
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-05-29· cited 3×
• State v. Cupp
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-07-24· cited 2×
• State v. Barnes
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-02-03· cited 1×