Skip to main content

State v. Nicholson

Citations

  • 748 P.2d 1028
  • 89 Or. App. 306
  • 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 80

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “[a]ssigning [an officer] to watch the car while the officers obtained a warrant would have been the correct procedure”
  • explaining that Oregon courts have held that the possibility of interference with a car “constituted exigent circumstances only when the state has proven that identi- fiable persons with a motive to interfere existed” (emphasis added)
  • finding no exigency where the record did not indicate that someone attempted to remove evidence from a car, which would have created the exigency justifying a seizure of the car or the items in it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Joseph, Van Hoomissen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.