Summary
holding that, for Apprendi purposes, guidelines departure sentences do not involve imposition of sentences that are longer than the statutorily prescribed maximums
Summary of this case from Teague v. PalmateerOpinion
October 22, 2002
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Oct 22, 2002
335 Or. 42 (Or. 2002)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Oct 22, 2002
335 Or. 42 (Or. 2002)
holding that, for Apprendi purposes, guidelines departure sentences do not involve imposition of sentences that are longer than the statutorily prescribed maximums
Summary of this case from Teague v. Palmateeraddressing ruling concerning availability of certain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand
Summary of this case from State v. Stocktonaddressing ruling concerning the availability of certain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand
Summary of this case from State v. Merrilladdressing ruling concerning the availability of certain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand
Summary of this case from Snyder v. Amsberryaddressing ruling concerning the availability of certain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand
Summary of this case from State v. Savagediscussing the requirements of ORS 43.160, "which had its genesis in the common-law principle of issue preclusion"
Summary of this case from Merrill v. A.R.G.discussing the requirements of ORS 43.160, “which had its genesis in the common-law principle of issue preclusion”
Summary of this case from Leach v. Scottsdale Indem. Co.using ORS 813.160 “to be valid” language as an example of a foundational requirement
Summary of this case from State v. Westaddressing ruling concerning the availability of certain type of attorney fees under ORS 87.060 as likely to arise on remand
Summary of this case from Dept. of Transportation v. Stallcupusing ORS 813.160 "to be valid" language as an example of a foundational requirement
Summary of this case from State v. SchaffCase details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Oct 22, 2002
Citations
335 Or. 42 (Or. 2002)
57 P.3d 581
Citing Cases
L.H. Morris Electric v. Hyundai Semiconductor
Nelson v. Emerald People's Utility Dist., 318 Or. 99, 104, 862 P.2d 1293 (1993). In Westwood Construction Co.…
Teague v. PalmateerDefendant expressly acknowledges, and I agree, that the dangerous offender statute authorizes a court to…