concluding that police had not unlawfully invaded curtilage where the officers went to the defendant's home but, instead of going to the front door, went to a side entry that was visible from the public sidewalk, had a doorbell, and was adjacent to a common driveway that the defendant shared with his next-door neighbor
Summary of this case from State v. Pierce1995.
concluding that police had not unlawfully invaded curtilage where the officers went to the defendant's home but, instead of going to the front door, went to a side entry that was visible from the public sidewalk, had a doorbell, and was adjacent to a common driveway that the defendant shared with his next-door neighbor
Summary of this case from State v. Pierceaffirming judgment imposing departure sentence considering, among other things, the defendants’ disregard for any laws and inability to be deterred from committing new criminal activity
Summary of this case from State v. Carreradiscussing circumstances in which sentencing court's findings of independent grounds for departure are sufficient to support conclusion that court would have imposed the same departure sentence based on a single factor alone
Summary of this case from State v. Sawatzkyrelying on a different comment
Summary of this case from Walsh v. C K Market, Inc.refusing to consider, as unpreserved, argument based on policy language
Summary of this case from Safeco Insurance Company v. Laskeydescribing preservation requirements
Summary of this case from State v. SanchezFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1995
Plaintiff appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant automobile insurer in this breach…
State v. PierceThere is no implied consent for a stranger to do so. `[W]e do not place things of a private nature on our…