Court of Appeals of Oregon· 9/26/2012

State v. Peterson

Citations

252 Or. App. 424
287 P.3d 1243
2012 WL 4378876
2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1177

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a five-month delay that was inadequately explained was unreasonable in light of the total 19-month delay
concluding that 19 months of delay exceeded expectations for bringing a case of that type to trial before it examined whether the delay was reasonable
concluding that the five-month period of state-attributed delay was unreasonable because neither the court nor the state gave a satisfactory reason for why the court’s scheduling error occurred
explaining that, where the defendant’s trial “needed to be reset because of the logistical demands of a pending death penalty case,” the delay was reasonable
noting that there is “nothing unreasonable about a 40-day interval between the commencement of a misdemeanor case and the setting of a first status conference” for purposes of statutory speedy trial
listing decisions requiring ORS 135.747 dismissal of misdemeanors where the cumulative period of delay attributable to the state exceeded 15 months and where a significant part of the delay was found to be unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Armstrong, Brewer, Duncan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.