Legal Opinion

Verduzco v. State of Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 2015No. CC CV110467; CA A153165; SC S062339PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

In. Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 US 264, 128 S Ct 1029, 169 L Ed 2d 859 (2008), the United States Supreme Court held that state courts may apply new federal constitutional rules retroactively in state post-conviction proceedings even though those rules do not apply retroactively in federal habeas corpus proceedings. We allowed review in this case to consider the principles that Oregon courts should follow in exercising the authority that Danforth recognized. However, after considering the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the state statutory rule against successive petitions bars the grounds…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
  2. Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
  3. Eklof v. StewardOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Watkins v. AckleyOregon Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Bogle v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2018

30 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