Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Caleb v. Beesley

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1997No. SC S43541 (Control), S43542PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

This is an original mandamus proceeding arising out of sentences imposed in the criminal cases of State v. Soloman (CC 95-2337CR) and State v. Pate (CC 95-1765CR). In each case, defendant, a circuit court judge, refused to impose the mandatory minimum sentences mandated by Ballot Measure 11 (1994) (Measure 11) and by ORS 137.700(2)(c) (1995). Defendant ruled that Measure 11 is facially unconstitutional under several provisions of the Oregon Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we disagree. Accordingly, we direct the issuance of peremptory writs of mandamus requiring defendant to enter…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. SawyerOregon Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. FugateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. State v. Ferman-VelascoOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. McLainCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

24 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