Legal Opinion
State v. Hill
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 20, 2016No. CR100274; A147778PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NAKAMOTO, J. pro tempore
Defendant was convicted of second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025, and fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, as a result of an incident at a casino owned and operated by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. In the trial court, defendant moved for dismissal of the case, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, he again asserts that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, but he offers a new rationale for his position: because the incident occurred in Indian country,1 (1) the state bore the burden, but…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Williams v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Rice v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Solem v. BartlettSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Menten and DeatherageCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
- Peters v. C21 Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
- State v. MarlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2026
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023