State v. Nickles

How courts have described this case

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

• considering in detail the elements of the crime of unlawful possession of a destruc- tive device to determine the sufficiency of corroborating evidence
• because the statute at issue did not prohibit posses- sion of all explosive devices, evidence that the defendant had been injured in an explosion did not tend to show that the injury was a result of criminal activity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Bentley
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-12-18· cited 6×
• State v. Hilding
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-29· cited 3×
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-05-05· cited 2×
• State v. McLarrin
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-15· cited 1×
• State v. Raney
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-04-03

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Lerch
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-02-08· cited 87×
• State v. Hauskins
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-07-05· cited 25×
• State v. Simons
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-09-05· cited 17×
• State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Garrett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2004-06-09· cited 6×
• State v. Hernandez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-04-24· cited 6×
• State v. Moreno
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-01-27· cited 5×
• State v. Bluel
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-05-10· cited 4×