green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.0 score
“ordinarily, the interpretation of statutory wording entails a question of law.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lincoln Loan Co. v. Estate of George Geppert
ordinarily, the interpretation of statutory wording entails a question of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. United States
Of critical importance here is another claim-preclusion principle that operates as an exception to the general rule against “claim-splitting.” As we explained in Ram Technical Services, Inc., “in the absence of a compulsory counterclaim statute, claim preclusion does not apply when the plaintiff in the second case failed, as a defendant in the first case, to raise a counterclaim.” Id. at 630-31 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphases added).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jefferson
State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131 , 134 n 2, 452 P3d 1022 (2019); see State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 34-35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (holding that the rules of preservation do not apply when the court issues an order or judgment containing the complained-of error, because there is no practical way for the party to raise such an issue and thus, the judgment should be vacated and remanded for corrected entry).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jefferson
State v. Baccaro, 300 Or App 131 , 134 n 2, 452 P3d 1022 (2019); see State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 34-35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (holding that the rules of preservation do not apply when the court issues an order or judgment containing the complained-of error, because there is no practical way for the party to raise such an issue and thus, the judgment should be vacated and remanded for corrected entry).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miles
See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 33-35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (vacating and remanding for entry of a corrected judgment where the judgment misstated the crime of conviction). 4 State v. Miles criminal negligence,2 we accept the state’s concession that the court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the requisite mental state.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Baccaro
See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Garcia-Rocio
See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (finding exception to preservation requirement where error arose for the first time in judgment).
cited
Cited "see"
DiNicola v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503
See State v. Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 267 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (the meaning of a statutory provision is a question of law).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Baco
See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (concluding that it was plain error to enter a judgment of unlawful possession of methamphetamine when the defendant was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of heroin).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Griffin
See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 34 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (preservation principles do not apply when “the error arose when the court issued its order or judgment, and not earlier”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
ORS 136.760(2); see State v. Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 270 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (“What is now ORS 136.765 was the product of a work group that the Governor established in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely * * *, which recognized a defendant’s federal constitutional right to a jury trial on any facts that increase the defendant’s sentence beyond a presumptive sentence under state sentencing guidelines.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
(2×)
ORS 136.760(2); see State v. Roberts, 231 Or.App. 263, 270 , 219 P.3d 41 (2009), rev. den., 347 Or. 608 , 226 P.3d 43 (2010) ("What is now ORS 136.765 was the product of a work group that the Governor established in response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely * * *, which recognized a defendant's federal constitutional right to a jury trial on any facts that increase the defendant's sentence beyond a presumptive sentence under state sentencing guidelines.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SAIF Corp. v. Matt Jenkins Contracting
See, e.g., State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 34 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (preservation requirement does not apply where “the error arose when the court issued its order or judgment, and not earlier” (emphasis added)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ORR
v.
HILL.
v.
HILL.
S058016.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Feb 4, 2010.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
Petition for review denied.