State v. Severe

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding for entry of a supplemental judgment that does not misstate the law concerning minimum fees
• reversing for entry of amended judgment because that provision did not correctly state the minimum fee as set by a Chief Justice Order as authorized by ORS 1.202(4)
• “The problem is not that the notice [of additional fees] was announced outside defen- dant’s presence; the problem is that what the court added to the judgment was wrong.”
• “The problem is not 650 State v. Cunningham that the notice [of additional fees] was announced outside of defendant’s presence; the problem is that what the court added to the judgment was wrong.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Martinez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-02-19· cited 10×
• State v. Severe
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-06-04
• State v. Cunningham
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-04-22

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. DeCamp
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-02-03· cited 60×
• State v. Ciraulo
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2020-12-24· cited 47×
• State v. Baccaro
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-10-16· cited 18×
• State v. Ciraulo
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-01-23· cited 6×
• Dept. of Human Services v. E. J.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-12-22· cited 6×