Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Czerniak

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 2004No. CC 99C20086; SC S50103PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

This mandamus case arises out of a post-conviction proceeding. Petitioner (the relator in the mandamus case) contends that the trial court impermissibly required him to rely on written submissions to prove his case and to provide pretrial disclosure of his expert witnesses’ names and testimony. We conclude that the premise of petitioner’s first objection — that the court required him to prove his case by written submissions — is not well taken. We agree, however, that the court lacked authority to order pretrial disclosure of petitioner’s expert witnesses’ names and testimony. We conclude…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  4. State v. BarrettOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. SwainOregon Supreme Court · 1974

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State v. WilliamsOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Force v. Department of RevenueOregon Supreme Court · 2011

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API