Court of Appeals of Oregon· 11/24/2004

State v. Stearns

Citations

101 P.3d 811
196 Or. App. 272
2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 1498

How courts have described this case

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

interpreting ambiguous statute in light of legislative intent and concluding statute did not prohibit obscuring the word “Oregon”
interpreting ambiguous statute in light of legislative intent and concluding statute did not prohibit obscuring the word “Oregon”
interpreting ambiguous statute in light of legislative intent and concluding statute did not prohibit obscuring the word “Oregon”
an officer must “subjectively believe[ ] that the infraction occurred” in order for probable cause to exist in the context of a traffic stop
“subjective belief that a traffic infraction occurred was objectively reasonable only if, in fact, obstruction of the word ‘Oregon’ by a registration plate frame is a violation of ORS 803.550”
“subjective belief that a traffic infraction occurred was objectively reasonable only if, in fact, obstruction of the word ‘Oregon’ by a registration plate frame” violated a traffic law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Linder, Ortega

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.