State v. Mendoza

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that rever- sal was required when a defendant was denied the opportu- nity to present closing arguments in a bench trial because of their persuasive role and that they may be crucial to correct premature misjudgments
• determining that rever- sal was required when a defendant was denied the opportu- nity to present closing arguments in a bench trial because of their persuasive role and that they may be crucial to correct premature misjudgments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-Burdette
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-10-15· cited 2×
• State v. Mendoza
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-04-16· cited 1×

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re WINSHIP
  Supreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
• Herring v. New York
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 1,330×
• Peeples v. Lampert
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2008-08-14· cited 389×
• State v. Olmstead
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1990-10-25· cited 77×
• State v. Rogoway
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1904-12-19· cited 38×
• State v. Doern
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1998-10-28· cited 25×
• State v. Barajas
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-12-14· cited 17×
• State v. George
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-09-16· cited 16×
• State v. Keene
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-01-12· cited 14×
• State v. Powell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-09-28· cited 14×
• State v. Craigen
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2023-01-19· cited 13×
• State v. Lovins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-10-31· cited 10×
• Stau v. Taylor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-02-20· cited 5×
• State v. Gayman
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-06-09· cited 5×
• State v. Mendoza
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-04-16· cited 1×