State v. Parker
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentPerry, J.
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that venue having been properly laid in Multnomah County in the *379first trial of defendant, that court continues to have jurisdiction of the cause on remand until a final judgment is entered. I disagree, however, with the court’s dictum to the effect that it is not necessary to determine “whether ORS 131.340 is to be construed broadly as in People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal App2d 748, 106 P2d 84 (1940), or narrowly as in State v. Rider, 46 Kan 332, 26 P 745 (1891).” Such a statement is misleading, for the rule in People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal App2d 748, 106…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Mooney v. HolohanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Pyle v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Hebert v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Alcorta v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.