State v. Nunn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence in determining whether the oath or affirmation requirement of the Oregon Constitution had been met
• holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence in determining whether the oath or affirmation requirement of the Oregon Constitution had been met
• considering extrinsic evidence in the form of later testimony sufficient to show that warrant was executed under oath
• considering extrinsic evidence in the form of later testimony sufficient to show that warrant was executed under oath
• allowing extrinsic evidence to show that issuing judge properly swore in affiant
• “Article I, section 9, does not specify a procedure for determining whether an affidavit is supported by oath or affirmation; it simply requires that it, in fact, be so supported.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Keith
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1998-09-28· cited 566×
• Smith v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2006-11-22· cited 55×
• State v. Colon
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-05· cited 25×
• State v. Evans
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1991-12-04· cited 18×
• State of Iowa v. Maurice D. Angel and Kemia B. McDowell
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-04-21· cited 10×
• State v. Perrodin
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-10-20· cited 8×
• State v. Drummond
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-10-11· cited 1×
• Smith, Freddie James
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2006-11-22
• Amended July 5, 2017 State of Iowa v. Maurice D. Angel and Kemia B. McDowell
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-04-21