Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Westlund

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 21, 1985No. C83-01-30264; CA A28733Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRossman, J.

I write separately out of a deep sense of frustration. Despite our best efforts, this court seems to be losing its ongoing struggle to find the true meaning of State v. Lowry. Although I would never presume to have insights into Lowry which my colleagues lack, I cannot believe that the majority’s interpretation is the correct one. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

This is not the first time that reasonable minds on this court have differed as to the true import of Lowry. See, e.g., State v. Herbert, 75 Or App 106, 705P2d 220 (1985); State v. Flores, 68 Or App 617, 685 P2d 999, rev den…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. FloresCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  2. State v. HerbertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. State v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Jungwirth v. JungwirthOregon Supreme Court · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API