State v. Miskell

How courts have described this case

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

• describing exigent circumstances under both Article I, section 9, and Fourth Amendment as “circumstances that require swift action to prevent harm to persons or property, escape of a suspect, destruction of evidence, or the like”
• describing body-wire and wiretap statutes in detail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Klein
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2012-08-02· cited 80×
• State v. Bonilla
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2015-12-31· cited 39×
• State v. McCarthy
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2021-12-30· cited 35×
• State v. Simon
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-11-15· cited 34×
• State v. Fessenden / Dicke
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2014-08-07· cited 22×
• State v. Ritz
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-03-25· cited 9×
• State v. Delaurent
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-08· cited 7×
• State v. McLean
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-09-07

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. Davis
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2003-10-02· cited 666×
• State v. Stevens
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-02-07· cited 332×
• State v. Campbell
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1988-07-12· cited 212×
• State v. Lowry
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1983-07-26· cited 133×
• United States v. Vaatausili Mark Alaimalo
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-12-20· cited 65×
• State v. Meharry
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2006-12-21· cited 47×
• State v. Hawkins
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1970-01-21· cited 14×
• McConney v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1984-10-01· cited 6×