green
Positive treatment
Trending · 108 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.4 score
“the point of the doctrine is to ensure that parties do not 'blame the court' for their intentional or strategic trial choices that later prove unwise and then, to the trial court's surprise, use the error that they invited to obtain a new trial.”
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Hughes
the point of the doctrine is to ensure that parties do not 'blame the court' for their intentional or strategic trial choices that later prove unwise and then, to the trial court's surprise, use the error that they invited to obtain a new trial.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Alcon-Ayala
See State v. Derry, 200 Or App 587, 591 , 116 P3d 248 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Alcon-Ayala
See State v. Derry, 200 Or App 587, 591 , 116 P3d 248 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Howe
See State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 270 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (discussing what it means to invite error).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ponzi
See generally State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (if an appellant was actively instru- mental in bringing about an error, the judgment should not be reversed because of it).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Almaraz-Martinez
See State v. Cook, 267 Or App 776, 779 , 341 P3d 848 (2014) (“if an appellant ‘was actively instrumental in bringing about’ the error, then the appellant ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it’” (quoting State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006))).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wendt
See State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (“[I]f an appellant ‘was actively instrumental in bringing about’ the error, then the appellant ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.’” (Quoting Anderson v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or 211, 217 , 77 P 119 (1904).)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Foster Group, Inc. v. City of Elgin
See State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (“[I]f an appellant ‘was actively instrumental in bringing about’ the error, then the appellant ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.’” (Quoting Anderson v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or 211, 217 , 77 P 119 (1904))). 6 We agree with the city that plaintiff invited any error in applying a two-year limitations period to the ejectment claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Reeves
See State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269-71 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (“[I]f an appellant ‘was actively instrumental in bringing [* * *] about’ the error, then the appellant ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.’ ” (quoting Anderson v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or 211, 217 , 77 P 119 (1904))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Devlin v. Banks
See, e.g., State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (The invited error doctrine “provides that, if an appellant ‘was actively instrumental in bringing about’ the error, then the appellant ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.’ ” (Quoting Anderson v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or 211, 216-17 , 77 P 119 (1904).)); see also Ferguson, 201 Or App at 270 (“The point of the doc- trine is to ensure that parties do not ‘blame the court’ for their intentional or strategic trial choices that later pr…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF HAUSERMAN.
S52911.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jan 24, 2006.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Petition for Review Allowed.