From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied

Oregon Supreme Court
May 11, 1982
293 Or. 146 (Or. 1982)

Summary

framing the question as "whether under the totality of the circumstances, the identifications were nevertheless reliable and therefore admissible"

Summary of this case from State v. Lawson

Opinion


650 P.2d 78 (Or. 1982) 293 Or. 146 Bob M. PETERSON, Jr., Respondent on Review, v. LEBANON MACHINE WORKS, a division of Willamette Industries, Inc., a corporation, aka Lebanon Machine division of Willamette Industries; and Willamette Industries, Inc., a corporation, Petitioner on Review. CA 19040; SC 28585. Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc May 11, 1982

       Submitted April 15, 1982.

        Reconsideration Denied June 29, 1982.

       On Review from the Court of Appeals, 56 Or.App. 378, 641 P.2d 1165.

       Elizabeth A. Trainor and Arden Shenker, of Tooze, Kerr, Marshalls&s Shenker, Portland, for petitioner on review.

       David R. Vandenberg, Jr., Klamath Falls, and Lyle C. Velure, of Malagon, Velures&sYates, Eugene, for respondent on review.

       PER CURIAM.

       Petition for review allowed. Remanded to the Court of Appeals in light of Sandford v. Chev. Div. Gen. Motors, 292 Or. 590, 642 P.2d 624 (1982), and Wilson v. B. F. Goodrich, 292 Or. 626, 642 P.2d 644 (1982).


Summaries of

Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied

Oregon Supreme Court
May 11, 1982
293 Or. 146 (Or. 1982)

framing the question as "whether under the totality of the circumstances, the identifications were nevertheless reliable and therefore admissible"

Summary of this case from State v. Lawson
Case details for

Petitions for Review Allowed and Denied

Case Details

Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: May 11, 1982

Citations

293 Or. 146 (Or. 1982)
293 Or. 146

Citing Cases

State v. Staley

Bruce is thus an example of the second situation, because the witness did not claim to have lost her memory…

State v. Najibi

Therefore, we need only discuss the trial court's holding regarding the second step. In reviewing that…