Legal Opinion

State v. Dierks

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 12, 2013No. 110545450; A149290PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHadlock, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment finding her in contempt for having violated the terms of a no-contact order issued by a Washington court. Defendant raises three assignments of error, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress, by overruling a hearsay objection that she made during the bench trial, and by purportedly applying “the wrong legal standard when it ‘instructed’ itself that the state did not have to show that defendant willfully violated the [Washington] court’s order.” Because it is dispositive, we address only defendant’s first assignment of error, in which…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. AshbaughOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. RadtkeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. State v. SotoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. State v. SalvadorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. DierksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. State v. CharlesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API