State v. Running

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that ORS 136.580 does not allow a criminal defendant to use the subpoena duces tecum as a discovery device
• setting forth facts underlying petitioner’s convictions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Wixom
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-12-30· cited 9×
• Running v. Kelly
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-09-23· cited 4×
• Running v. Oregon
  Supreme Court· 2004-11-29

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Brady v. Maryland
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
• Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-10-19· cited 2,400×
• State v. Lotches
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2000-12-29· cited 125×
• State v. Moore
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1996-12-06· cited 72×
• State v. Hale
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2003-08-14· cited 48×
• State v. Cartwright
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-02-26· cited 19×
• State v. Rogers
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2002-10-03· cited 6×
• State Ex Rel. Click v. Brownhill
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2000-12-29· cited 2×