Legal Opinion
State v. Goldstein
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided April 15, 1924PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoBRIDE, C. J.
The first error alleged was the refusal of the court to dismiss the indictment for the reason that the case had not been brought to trial at the next term of court in which the indictment was found. This objection is predicated upon Section 1701, Or. L., which reads as follows:
“§1701. Dismissal of the Action When not Brought to Trial at Next Term After Indictment Found. If a defendant indicted for a crime, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application or by his consent, be not brought to trial at the next term of the court in which the indictment is triable, after it is found, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Copperman v. . People of the State of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- Smith v. JeromeNew York Supreme Court · 1905
- State v. FeuerhakenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- State v. FloranceOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State of Oregon v. KuhnhausenOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- State v. SanfordOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Rogue River Packing Corp. v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 1976
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.