green
Positive treatment
Trending · 92 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 13×
25.9 score
G Cite
cited 9× by 8 distinct cases, 2005–2022 ·
…here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2009–2018 ·
…here fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Miller
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alter- native basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miller v. Racing Commission
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Drew
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Nunes
(2×)
here fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miller v. Columbia County
once the facts relevant to probable cause are determined, whether probable cause is a question of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Simmons
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County
(2×)
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. RIVERA-NEGRETE
here fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
National Union Fire Insurance v. Starplex Corp.
where fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shank v. Board of Nursing
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Ruiz
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Stoudamire
here plaintiffs fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm it.
discussed
Cited "see"
LaTulippe v. Oregon Medical Board
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (explaining that, where a trial court relied on alternative bases in making a ruling, and the appellant assigns error to the ruling but does not challenge all of the bases, the appellate court “must affirm” the ruling); Shank v. Board of Nursing, 220 Or App 228, 237-38 , 185 P3d 532 (2008) (applying same principle on judicial review of an administrative order).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Franke
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (concluding that where appellants “fail to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court’s ruling, we must affirm it”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Franke
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (requiring affirmance when a party “fail[s] to challenge the alternative basis of the trial court’s ruling”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kleikamp v. Board of Commissioners of Yamhill County
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 236 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (explaining that, when a trial court bases a decision on multiple grounds, an appellant must demonstrate error on all of the independent bases supporting the court’s ruling).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. DuBois
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 249 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (under ORCP 59 H, error in failing to give a particular jury instruction is not preserved unless the instruction has been requested); ORS 136.330(2) (providing that ORCP 59 H “applies to and regulates exceptions in criminal actions”).
cited
Cited "see"
Cascade Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 253-54 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Morsman v. City of Madras
See Morsman v. City of Madras, 196 Or App 67 , 100 P3d 761 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (Morsman TV), reversing and remanding Morsman v. City of Madras, 47 Or LUBA 80 (2004) (Morsman III); Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149 , 81 P3d 711 (2003) (Morsman II), affirmingin part and reversing in part, Morsman v. City of Madras, 45 Or LUBA 16 (2003) (Morsman I).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Pervish
See Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219, 248-50 , 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 374 (2005) (holding that ORCP 59 H does not obviate the need to preserve, by requesting an instruction in the first instance, a claim that the trial court erred in failing to give the instruction).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SHORT
v.
HILL
v.
HILL
S52179.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Apr 5, 2005.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (14)
Petition for review denied.