State v. Wrixon

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing with the board’s reasoning “indicating that its deferral of peti- tioner’s parole consideration date was based on his danger- ousness, not on his condition or disorder” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Similarly, in McCline, we held that the language of ORS 144.125(3
• agreeing with the board’s reasoning “indicating that its deferral of petitioner’s parole consideration date was based on his dan- gerousness, not on his condition or disorder” (internal quota- tion marks and brackets omitted). Similarly, in McCline, we held that the language of ORS 144.125(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).