Klamath County Circuit Court, Oregon· 5/11/2016

State v. Parnell

Citations

278 Or. App. 260
373 P.3d 1252
2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 576

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that a written motion to suppress “frames the issues that the court will be required to decide, and it notifies the state of the contentions that it must be prepared to address at the hearing on the motion” (internal quotation marks omitted)
“ [I]f a party makes an argument in a written motion, he or she need not necessarily reiterate that precise argument at the hearing in order for the issue to be preserved.”
“[B]ecause the trial court did not separately consider or rule on the validity of the sub- sequent consent to search the home, we cannot presume that the trial court made implicit findings consistent with Cite as 350 Or App 802 (2026

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garrett, Lagesen, Ortega

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 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.