Oregon Supreme Court· 12/28/2001

State v. Terry

Citations

37 P.3d 157
333 Or. 163
2001 Ore. LEXIS 1024

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 defect in a charging instrument does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction
explaining that subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal case attaches as a result of the issuance of the indictment or information
explaining that questions about a court’s “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction” are questions about “the scope of proceedings that may be heard by a particular court”
explaining that questions about a court’s “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction” are questions about “the scope of proceedings that may be heard by a par- ticular court”
explaining that questions about “the scope of proceedings that may be heard by a particular court” present questions about the court’s “[s]ubject matter 13 The department contends that ORS 419B.090(1
finding curative instruction sufficient to “neutralize the possibility of prejudice to the defendant” where witness’s statement contained inference that defendant failed polygraph examination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson, Riggs, and De Muniz, Justices

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

68 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.