State v. Pearson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that officers' uncertainty regarding number of persons on premises was sufficient, in part, to warrant immediate entry to guard against destruction of evidence
• noting that officers’ uncertainty regarding number of persons on premises was sufficient, in part, to warrant immediate entry to guard against destruction of evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Cocke
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-06-23· cited 11×
• State v. Sargent
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-10-06· cited 2×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Chapman v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
• State v. Ingram
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-10-02· cited 63×
• State v. Matsen
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-10-23· cited 57×
• State v. Olson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-07-31· cited 54×
• State v. Peller
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-08-07· cited 45×
• State v. Fondren
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1979-02-27· cited 36×
• State v. Hansen
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1983-06-01· cited 35×
• State v. Ronniger
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1971-12-27· cited 27×
• State v. Dunavant
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-07-24· cited 23×
• State v. McManus
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1973-12-13· cited 23×
• State v. Scheer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-12-22· cited 15×
• State v. Kelgard
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1979-05-14· cited 11×