State v. Stanford

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 the state filed its motion to extend and mod- ify probation before the date on which the defendant’s orig- inal probation period was to have expired, the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify and extend probation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Berglund
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-05-12· cited 11×
• State v. Stuve
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-02-12· cited 7×
• State v. Vanlieu
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-07-25· cited 7×
• State v. Stanford
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-02-26· cited 5×
• State v. Zimmerman
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-04-19· cited 4×
• State v. Laizure
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-12-07· cited 4×
• State v. Dunn
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-09-22· cited 3×
• State v. Baker
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-05-12· cited 2×
• State v. Larson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-09-15