Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2000

State v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided July 12, 2000 · De Muniz, Haselton, Wollheim

7 P.3d 738; 169 Or. App. 78; 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1142 (Pacific Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Van Nelson (Or. Ct. App. 2026)
State v. Kelly (Or. Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Brown (Or. Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Burns (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Duffy (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Watson (Or. Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Andre (Or. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Early (Or. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Schwartz (Or. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Hollister (Or. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Roland (Or. Ct. App. 2001)
Antoine v. Taylor (Or. 2021)
State v. Duffy (Or. Ct. App. 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*80 HASELTON, J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration, challenging our opinion, State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 999 P2d 1220 (2000), in many respects. We allow the petition to correct one statement in our opinion and reject defendant’s other challenges without discussion.

Our opinion states:

“Defendant responds that ‘sufficiency’ under subsection (4) and ‘definiteness and certainty’ under subsection (2) and ORS 132.550(7) are distinct concepts and distinct requirements generally analogous in the civil context to the bases for a motion to dismiss for ‘failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim,’ ORCP 21 A(8), and a motion to make more definite and certain under ORCP 21 D.” 167 Or App at 303-04 (original emphasis bold; emphasis added).

Defendant contends that he never analogized a demurrer for lack of specificity to an ORCP 21 motion. That is correct. The italicized language, while generally intended to illustrate the distinction defendant posited, is not properly ascribed to defendant. Accordingly, the opinion is modified so that the balance of the sentence following “requirements” is deleted.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.