Szczepanski v. Pennsylvania Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “an assertion not made by a person but by a machine . . . is not hearsay”
• “Because the citation was facially sufficient, the court properly denied the demurrer.” (footnote omitted; emphasis added)
• notation of speed on radar photograph “was generated by a machine, and not made by a person,” therefore, it “is an assertion not made by a person” and is not hearsay
• “[W]e are unaware of any Oregon authority by which a pretrial ‘motion to dismiss’ can be employed to challenge the sufficiency of the state’s anticipated proof of a charge.”
• “[W]e are unaware of any Oregon authority by which a pretrial ‘motion to dismiss’ can be employed to challenge the sufficiency of the state’s anticipated proof of a charge.”
• “[W]e are unaware of any Oregon authority by which a pretrial motion * * * can be employed to challenge the sufficiency of the state’s anticipated proof of a charge.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).