State v. Miller

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that ORS 475.235 as interpreted and applied in Hancock was constitutional
• deciding under Crawford that laboratory test result concluding urine and pipe residue contained methamphetamine was testimonial
• state lab report finding controlled dangerous substances in defendant's urine sample held testimonial
• laboratory reports concluding urine and pipe residue contained methamphetamine testimonial
• laboratory report showing presence of drugs in defendant's urine
• ORS 475.235 does not violate a defendant’s confrontation rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Geier
  California Supreme Court· 2007-07-02· cited 378×
• United States v. Harcrow
  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 2008-03-13· cited 188×
• Hinojos-Mendoza v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2007-09-10· cited 120×
• United States v. Washington
  Fourth Circuit· 2007-08-22· cited 92×
• State v. March
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2007-03-20· cited 87×
• State v. O'MALEY
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 2007-09-05· cited 26×
• State v. Velykoretskykh
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-01-28· cited 16×
• Brooks v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 2006-12-19· cited 14×
• State v. Miller
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-12-27· cited 9×
• State v. Choin
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-03-05· cited 6×
• State v. Sullivan
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-08-22
• State v. Dibbern
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-10-31
• State v. Rodriguez-Barrera
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-10-31