green
Positive treatment
Trending · 80 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 8×
21.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Giurculete
f a trial court does erroneously allow a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness, reversal is not required if the trial court directs the jury to disregard the inappropriate testimony.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Nollen
f this court is required to choose from among competing inferences as to possible strategic reasons for a defendant's failure to object to a trial court's ruling, we cannot say that the error is 'plain' on the face of the record.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Nollen
f this court is required to choose from among competing inferences as to possible strategic reasons for a defendant's failure to object to a trial court's ruling, we cannot say that the error is 'plain' on the face of the record.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Ellis
f this court is required to choose from among competing inferences as to possible strategic reasons for a defendant's failure to object to a trial court's ruling, we cannot say that the error is 'plain' on the face of the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Stewart
we look to the context in which the word appears to determine which meaning the legislature intended.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Inman
f a trial court does erroneously allow a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness, reversal is not required if the trial court directs the jury to disregard the inappropriate testimony.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hagberg v. Coursey
to render assistance that is constitutionally adequate, trial counsel need not be clairvoyant.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Logan v. State
to render assistance that is constitutionally adequate, trial counsel need not be clairvoyant.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mesta v. Franke
See Umberger v. Czerniak, 232 Or App 563, 564-65 , 222 P3d 751 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (stating that Wilson “exemplified” the “rule regarding expert testimony as to a diagnosis of child sexual abuse,” citing Sanchez-Cruz for the proposition that a diagnosis of sexual abuse was then-considered admissible evidence, and stating that “[o]nly recently, in [Southard] did the Oregon Supreme Court hold differently”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Trujillo-Torres
(2×)
Id. at 234 ; see also State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or App 25, 29 , 197 P3d 30 (2008), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (explain[ing] that expenses are incurred when a victim becomes subject to the expenses even though someone else might pay them).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mattila
See, e.g., State v. Romero-Navarro, 224 Or App 25, 30 , 197 P3d 30 (2008), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (holding that the insurer was enti- tled to restitution for burial and memorial expenses paid on behalf of a homicide victim’s estate).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shicor v. Bd. of Speech Language Pathology & Audiology
(2×)
See WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept. , 268 Or.App. 187 , 228, 342 P.3d 712 (2014) (concluding that the court was unable to engage in de novo review under ORS 183.650(4) because the licensee had not identified a historical finding of fact of the ALJ that the agency had modified); Moon v. Government Standards and Practices Comm. , 198 Or.App. 244 , 246 n.1, 108 P.3d 112 (2005) (where an assignment of error involves a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, ORS 183.650(4) is not applicable and the court reviews for errors of law); see also Gienger v. Dept. of State Lands , 230 Or.A…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Klontz
See also State v. Fulmer, 229 Or App 386 , 211 P3d 942 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (arguably inadmissible evidence in bench trial did not require reversal where evidence was partially cumulative and record did not indicate that court based its verdict on the disputed evidence); State v. Hunter, 141 Or App 73, 76-77 , 918 P2d 104 , rev den, 324 Or 78 (1996) (admission of arguably improper character evidence at bench trial had little likelihood of affecting the verdict where, in announcing its verdicts, the court relied primarily on other evidence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SAIF Corporation v. Miguez
Compare Gienger v. Dept. of State Lands, 230 Or App 178, 186-87 , 214 P3d 75 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010) (agency interpreted rule in the course of applying it by recounting, in the order, two of its own regulatory definitions and discussing how they applied, in concert, to the facts of the case).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
See, e.g., State v. Drinkwater, 231 Or App 6, 9 , 217 P3d 1090 (2009), rev den, 348 Or 13 (2010); State v. Neese, 229 Or App 182, 185 , 210 P3d 933 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 718 (2010). 4 We note further, in all events, that we would not exercise our discretion under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), to correct the purported “plain error,” because, in the circumstances of this case, the guiding considerations identified in Ailes, id. at 382 n 6, do not persuasively militate in favor of the exercise of such discretion.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Haines
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Drinkwater, 231 Or.App. 6, 9 , 217 P.3d 1090 (2009), rev. den., 348 Or. 13 , 227 P.3d 1172 (2010) (so stating and citing other cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SIFUENTEZ-RUIZ
v.
BELLEQUE.
v.
BELLEQUE.
S058140.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Mar 4, 2010.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (7)
Petition for review denied.