Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Oregon Supreme Court· 5/12/2022

State v. Rusen

Citations

  • 369 Or. 677
  • 509 P.3d 628

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “there is no role for judicial review” of an “agreed-upon part” of a sentence
  • stating that the parties had agreed that, upon revocation, “the state could argue for consecutive sentences and [the] defendant could argue for concurrent ones”
  • stating that the parties had agreed that, upon revocation, “the state could argue for consecutive sentences and [the] defendant could argue for concurrent ones”
  • explaining that “when multiple statutory provisions potentially conflict, if the court can give full effect to both statutes, it will do so” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
  • stating that the agreement was that the state “could ask for” consecutive sentences, and the defendant would “be free to ask” for concurrent sentences (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • stating that the agreement was that the state “could ask for” consecutive sentences, and the defendant would “be free to ask” for concurrent sentences (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flynn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases named State v. Rusen

1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.