State v. MacOn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the storage room of a toy store with a camouflaged door, access limited to employees, and a function of storage rather than sales was a separate unit
• storage room of a toy store was separate unit from the store because it had separate physical access, sep- arate occupancy by employees only, and a separate function from the rest of the store

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Holsclaw
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-07-19· cited 8×
• State v. Rodriguez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-02-01· cited 7×
• State v. Perez-Salas
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-06-30· cited 1×
• State v. Haley
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-05-18· cited 1×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Gaines
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-04-30· cited 1,741×
• State v. Kurtz
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2011-03-25· cited 35×
• State v. Cocke
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2002-04-18· cited 18×
• State v. Barker
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1987-07-22· cited 15×
• State v. Essig
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1977-11-15· cited 11×
• State v. Jenkins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-11-04· cited 9×
• State v. Vargas-Torres
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-10-06· cited 7×
• State v. Handley
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-12-02· cited 7×
• State v. Peña
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-08-07· cited 4×