green
Positive treatment
Trending · 129 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 4×
12.3 score
“n our assessment of whether the erroneous admission of disputed evidence was harmless, we describe and review all pertinent portions of the record, not just those portions most favorable to the state.”
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Chandler
n our assessment of whether the erroneous admission of disputed evidence was harmless, we describe and review all pertinent portions of the record, not just those portions most favorable to the state.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. King
e first address question of statutory interpretation, which we review for errors of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Starr
on appeal from a judgment of conviction, we view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the state.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. KUPERUS
e first address question of statutory interpretation, which we review for errors of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Morales
In Jones, the dispositive question was “whether the material element in ORS 164.055(1)(a) that the total value of the stolen property must be $750 or more necessarily requires a culpable mental state.” Id. at 619.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Stowell
On appeal, defendant acknowledges that we held in Jones that the state was not required “to prove a defendant’s intent to steal property worth at least [ $1,000 3 ] in order to convict him of first-degree theft.” Id. at 621.
cited
Cited "see"
Cider Riot, LLC v. Patriot Prayer USA, LLC
See Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 30 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Cider Riot, LLC v. Patriot Prayer USA, LLC
See Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 30 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
C. R. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J
See Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 27-32 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (describing the legislative background on ORS 31.150 and concluding that the “purpose of the special motion to strike procedure, as amplified in the pertinent legislative history, is to expe- ditiously terminate unfounded claims that threaten consti- tutional free speech rights, not to deprive litigants of the benefit of a jury determination that a claim is meritorious.” (emphasis omitted)); see also Yes On 24-367 Committee v. Deaton, 276 Or App 347, 350-51 , 367 P3d 937 (2016) (explain- ing that, un…
discussed
Cited "see"
Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance Fund
“Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute creates an expedited procedure for dismissal of certain nonmeritorious civil cases without prejudice at the pleading stage.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 723 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016); see Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 29 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (the purpose of ORS 31.150 is “to provide for the dismissal of claims against persons participating in public issues * * * before the defendant is subject to substantial expenses in defending against them” through the creation of “a special motion to strike against a claim that arises out…
discussed
Cited "see"
Neumann v. Liles
See Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 29 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (purpose of ORS 31.150 is “to provide for the dismissal of claims against persons participating in public issues * * * before the defendant is subject to substantial expenses in defending against them”); Horton v. Western Protector Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Neumann v. Liles
See Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 29 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (purpose of ORS 31.150 is “to provide for the dismissal of claims against persons participating in pub- lic issues * * * before the defendant is subject to substantial expenses in defending against them”); Horton v. Western Protector Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Simonov
See State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 621 , 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (holding that, under a prior version of the first-degree theft statute requiring proof that the value of the property was over $750, the state was not required to prove that the defendant knew that the value of the property exceeded $750).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sines
See State v. Maiden, 222 Or App 9, 13 , 191 P3d 803 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (harmless error analysis requires court to assess “any differences between the quality of the erroneously admitted evidence and other evidence admitted on the same issue”).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hamlett
See State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 617-18 , 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (explaining the above analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Navarrete-Pech
See State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611 , 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009); State v. Bowen, 215 Or App 199 , 168 P3d 1208 (2007), adh’d to as modified on recons, 220 Or App 380 , 185 P3d 1129 , rev den, 345 Or 815 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lockamy
See State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 616-18 , 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (setting out analysis for determining whether the legislature intended to require proof of a culpable mental state as to a particular element of an offense); see also, e.g., State v. Cave, 223 Or App 60, 67-68 , 195 P3d 446 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 690 (2009) (in determining whether trial court erred in denying the defendant’s *114 motion for a judgment of acquittal on charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, reviewing court first determined the legislature’s intended meaning of offe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Benson
See, e.g., State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 616 , 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (addressing dispositive statutory interpretation issue before addressing other arguments).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Schoemaker
See, e.g., Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 41 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (inclusion of components in an instruction that do not bear on the case have the potential to confuse the 2 Whether impairment is “protracted” is relevant to charges requiring proof of “serious physical injury.” See, e.g., ORS 163.160(1)(c) (defining criminally negligent assault in the fourth degree with a motor vehicle); ORS 163.175(1)(b) (defining assault in the second degree); ORS 161.015(8) (defining “serious physi- cal injury” as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Neumann v. Liles
Young, 259 Or App at 508 ; see also Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17, 32 , 191 P3d 778 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009) (“The purpose of the special motion to strike procedure, as amplified in the pertinent legislative history, is to expeditiously terminate unfounded claims that threaten constitutional free speech rights, not to deprive litigants of the benefit of a jury determination that a claim is meritorious.” (Emphases in original.)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GRAHAM
v.
HOWTON.
v.
HOWTON.
S056675.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jan 13, 2009.
Petition for review denied.