State v. Tucker

749 P.2d 576, 305 Or. 43
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided February 2, 1988·No. TC 85-0025 CA A36725 SC S34368, S34604·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

749 P.2d 576 (1988)
305 Or. 43

STATE of Oregon, Petitioner On Review/Respondent On Review,
v.
Mindi Marie TUCKER, Respondent On Review/Petitioner On Review.

TC 85-0025; CA A36725; SC S34368, S34604.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

February 2, 1988.

Stephen F. Peifer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the petition for review and Jonathan H. Fussner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the supplemental petition for review on behalf of the petitioner State of Or. With them on the petitions were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Wayne Mackeson, Portland, filed the petition for review on behalf of the petitioner Mindi Marie Tucker. With him on the petition was Des Connall and Dan Lorenz, P.C., Portland.

MEMORANDUM OPINION.

The petitions for review of the State of Oregon and the defendant are denied. The supplemental petition for review of the State of Oregon is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals, 740 P.2d 182, is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issue raised in the supplemental petition of the State of Oregon.

PETERSON, C.J., and JONES, J., would have allowed review on the original petitions of the State of Oregon and defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Tucker, 749 P.2d 576, 305 Or. 43 (Or. 1988).

749 P.2d 576 (State v. Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Tucker
768 P.2d 397 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Tucker
753 P.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)