Citation network
Oregon Vs. Hass
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 714 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. HassSearch
-
U.S. 714 (1975) Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Syllabus When a suspect in police custody has been given and accepts the full warnings prescribed by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
to the contrary knowing such information had been ruled inadmissible for the prosecution's case in chief. Harris v. NewSearch
-
the opinion of the Court. This case presents a variation of the fact situation encountered by the Court in Harris v. NewSearch
-
At Hass' trial, Osterholme testified in camera that, after giving Hass the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
fine. The Oregon Court of Appeals, feeling itself bound by the earlier Oregon decision in State v. BrewtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
at 493 495, 517 P.2d at 674. Because the result was in conflict with that reached by the North Carolina court in State v. BryantSearch
-
and because it bore upon the reach of our decision in Harris v. NewSearch
-
police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards. See, e.g., Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
York, 392 U. S. 40 , 392 U. S. 60 -61 (1968). See also State v. KalunaSearch
-
See Smayda v. UnitedSearch
-
Aftanase v. EconomySearch
-
The fact that the Oregon courts found it necessary to attempt Page 420 U. S. 720 to distinguish Harris v. NewSearch
-
makes the State an aggrieved party for purposes of review. This should be self-evident, but cases such as California v. GreenSearch
-
U. S. 149 (1970), manifest its validity. 3. State v. BrewtonSearch
-
Brewton is pre- Harris. III This takes us to the real issue, namely, that of the bearing of Harris v. NewSearch
-
Relying on Walder v. UnitedSearch
-
Wright v. LaValleeSearch
-
Padgett v. RussellSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Rooks v. StateSearch
-
People v. NuddSearch
-
Jorgenson v. PeopleSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
State v. RetherfordSearch
-
Campbell v. StateSearch
-
People v. MooreSearch
-
Davis v. StateSearch
-
Sabatini v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HarrisSearch
-
State v. KishSearch
-
Ameen v. StateSearch
-
Wis.2d 175, 186 N.W.2d 206 (1971). Cf. Commonwealth v. HornerSearch
-
The respondent would take comfort in the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Oregon in State v. FloranceSearch
-
in any event, we reject it. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, dissenting. In Harris v. NewSearch
-
of his right to appointed counsel, and thus his subsequent statements to police were inadmissible under Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
As I pointed out in Harris v. NewSearch
-
common practice of reviewing state court decisions upholding constitutional claims in criminal cases. See Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
California v. GreenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial