Legal Opinion

State v. Lhasawa

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 19, 2002No. CC 9702-41629; CA A97609; SC S46749PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

The City of Portland (the City) has adopted several “civil exclusion” ordinances, under which the City temporarily excludes from designated areas of the city persons who the police have arrested for certain crimes. In the present case, we are asked to decide whether exclusion under one of those ordinances is “jeopardy” for purposes of the former jeopardy provision of the Oregon Constitution or the double jeopardy prohibition in the United States Constitution. If it is “jeopardy,” then the person on whom the City has imposed such an exclusion cannot later be prosecuted criminally for the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. WarnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. PageCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  3. State v. RoederCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. In re Quoc Thai PhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. State v. JensonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API