State v. Swartz

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, because the “defendant requested UCrJI 1227A, any error that the trial court made by giving the instruction constitutes invited error” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• concluding that, because the “defendant requested UCrJI 1227A, any error that the trial court made by giving the instruction constitutes invited error” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Meyer
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-07-28· cited 4×
• State v. Flack
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-02-07· cited 3×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Vanornum
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2013-12-27· cited 546×
• State v. Coverstone
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-01-29· cited 115×
• State v. Oliphant
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-10-08· cited 42×
• Tenbusch v. Linn County
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-01-31· cited 15×
• State v. Housego
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-02-18· cited 5×
• State v. Lea
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-01-25· cited 1×