Oregon Supreme Court· 2/4/1999

State v. Thompson

Citations

971 P.2d 879
328 Or. 248
1999 Ore. LEXIS 66

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that the court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
explaining that court would not address con- stitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
explaining that court would not address constitutional claims in the absence of “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
rejecting federal constitutional argument that had not been developed in the trial court or on appeal
refusing to address constitutional claims in the absence of any “thorough and focused constitutional analysis”
interpreting ORS 132.560 (1993), amended by Or Laws 1999, ch 1040, § 17, which required a showing of “prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, Leeson, Riggs

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.