Legal Opinion

State v. Meidel

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1965PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.

The defendant was convicted of larceny in a warehouse (ORS 164.320) and now appeals. He claims there was not sufficient evidence of his guilt to sustain his conviction because there was no evidence that he was in the warehouse in question.

At about 8:45 in the evening, a special police officer drove up alongside the warehouse and factory of I. Layton Creations, Inc., in the city of Portland for the purpose of checking the front door. At that time an automobile pulled away from the building at a rapid rate of speed in which the officer saw material that appeared to him to be of the type handled…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State v. PomeroyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. State v. GardnerOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  4. State v. BrinkleyOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  5. State v. MinnickOregon Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. BeesonOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  3. State v. CookOregon Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API