green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
26.6 score
“the rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain 142 solomon and solomon way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or at least will not later seek reversal on the basis of that ruling.”
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2019
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Solomon and Solomon
the rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain 142 solomon and solomon way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or at least will not later seek reversal on the basis of that ruling.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Kadin
the rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a cer- tain way under circumstances suggesting the party will be bound by the ruling or at least will not later seek a reversal on the basis of that ruling.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Barnes and Brennan
the rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under circumstances suggesting that the party will be bound by the ruling or at least will not later seek a reversal on the basis of that ruling.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morales
See State v. Hayne, 293 Or App 351, 365 , 427 P3d 201 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019) (“To minimize the risk of improperly denying self- representation to a competent defendant, trial courts should be cautious about making an incompetence finding with- out the benefit of an expert evaluation, though the judge’s own observations of the defendant’s in-court behavior will Cite as 348 Or App 635 (2026) 643 also provide key support for an incompetence finding and should be expressly placed on the record.” (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.)).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. D. B. O.
See State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 104 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. D. B. O.
See State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 104 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bialostosky v. Cummings
See State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 105 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019) (A party invites error when the party is actively instrumental in causing the trial court to rule a particular way.).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ashbaugh
See State v. Hayne, 293 Or App 351 , 427 P3d 201 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019) (discussing when, under Article I, section 11, a court may deny a request to proceed without counsel when a person’s mental illness ren- ders the person incapable of conducting the functions of the defense without the assistance of counsel).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist.
See State v. Wright, 294 Or App 772, 773-74 , 431 P3d 471 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019) (explaining that, to perfect a for-cause challenge to a juror, the record must show that, having used all a party’s peremptory challenges, the party was compelled to accept an objectionable juror).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Groff
See State v. Hayne, 293 Or App 351, 354-55 , 427 P3d 201 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019) (citing Indiana v. Edwards, 554 US 164, 171 , 128 S Ct 2379 , 171 L Ed 2d 345 (2008) (“The Sixth Amendment gives courts a similar range of discretion when addressing a defendant’s request to exercise the right of self-representation.”)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
v.
A. M. B.
v.
A. M. B.
A167415(A167416)(A167419)(S066335).
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jan 16, 2019.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Review Denied.