Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 20, 2016No. CR100274; A147778Published

1DissentArmstrong, P. J.

The majority concludes that defendant’s challenge to the circuit court’s authority to enforce state criminal law against him for his conduct at the Wildhorse Casino on the Umatilla Indian Reservation presents a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, hence, is a challenge that he can raise for the first time on appeal. I respectfully disagree. Federal law limits Oregon’s authority to apply its criminal law against people who commit crimes at the Wildhorse Casino, but that limit affects who can be subjected to state criminal law in state court, which, as I will explain, is a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. United States v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi, United States of America v. Ibrahim Ahmed Al-HamdiCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2004
  4. State v. TerryOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Greeninger v. CromwellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

8 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