State v. Richardson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that because of the breadth of the issues implicated by the defendant’s motions, we could not say that the error in proceeding without defense counsel was harmless
• trial court’s statement that “a lawyer may be able to assist you in challenging the indictment” was insufficient under Meyrick
• trial court’s statement that “a lawyer may be able to assist you in challenging the indict- ment” was insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jackson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-02-14· cited 27×
• State v. Phillips
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-06-16· cited 14×
• State v. Todd
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-07-23· cited 8×
• State v. Miller
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-08-22· cited 7×
• State v. Haines
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-01-25· cited 6×
• State v. Garrett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-10-09· cited 3×
• State v. Kyei
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-01-23· cited 3×
• State v. Hunt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-06-10· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Meyrick
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-04-23· cited 136×
• State v. Cole
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1996-03-21· cited 43×
• State v. Curran
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1994-09-07· cited 13×
• State v. Maletta
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-10-11· cited 7×
• State v. Cole
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1995-10-17· cited 5×