State v. Sweet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a motion to suppress was insufficient where it failed to expressly assert that the challenged search was warrantless
• court declined to address arguments not raised in defendant’s motion to suppress or in the hearing
• “A written motion to suppress serves dual functions. It frames the issues that the court will be required to decide, and it notifies the state of the contentions that it must be prepared to address at the hearing on the motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Parnell
  Klamath County Circuit Court, Oregon· 2016-05-11· cited 16×
• State v. Hallam
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-12-09· cited 12×
• State v. Hall
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-03-22· cited 10×
• State v. Anderson-Brown
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-03-30· cited 5×
• State v. Oxford
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2017-08-30· cited 4×
• State v. Roth
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-06-09· cited 2×
• State v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-07-09· cited 2×
• State v. Prado
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-06-02· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Stevens
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-02-07· cited 332×
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1974-03-11· cited 76×
• State v. Rhodes
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1992-12-31· cited 46×
• State v. Miller
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1974-08-01· cited 44×
• State v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-05-12· cited 32×
• State v. Brown
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-01-15· cited 14×
• State v. Rodriguez
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-09-16· cited 10×
• State v. Sweet
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-02-25· cited 1×