green
Positive treatment
Trending · 92 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
15.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the goal of the rule is to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later 'blame the court' if those choices prove to be unwise.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Answorth, Inc. v. OLCC
the goal of the rule is to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later 'blame the court' if those choices prove to be unwise.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Answorth, Inc. v. OLCC
the goal of the rule is to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later 'blame the court' if those choices prove to be unwise.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. De Acosta
(2×)
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instrumen- tal in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); see also State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 , 67, 404 P3d 926 (2017) (“As this court has long held, invited error is no basis for reversal.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dept. of Human Services v. R. L. E.
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Blake
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (invited error doctrine applies when a party has “invited the trial court to rule in a particular way under circumstances that suggest that the party will be bound by the ruling or will not later seek a reversal on the basis of that ruling”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Long-Ellis
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to com- plain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it. * * * The goal of the rule is to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later blame the court if those choices prove to be unwise.” (Internal quo- tation marks and citations omitted.)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rondin-Rios v. 4 B Farms, Inc.
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doc- trine, a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (we will not reverse based on an error that the party seek- ing reversal was “actively instrumental in bringing about”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Beeson
See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who ‘was actively instrumen- tal in bringing about’ an alleged error ‘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).)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. T.
See, e.g., State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (explaining that the goal of the doctrine of invited error is “to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later blame the court if those choices prove to be unwise” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. T.
See, e.g., State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (explaining that the goal of the doctrine of invited error is “to ensure that parties who make intentional or strategic trial choices do not later blame the court if those choices prove to be unwise” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morgan
See, e.g., State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dept. of Human Services v. R. J. J.
Further, as noted above, after father objected to the state’s request for a substance-abuse evaluation, the juvenile court explicitly asked father, “[D]o you object to any other of the requests by the State?” (Emphasis added.) And father explicitly replied, “No, Your Honor.” By stating that he did not object to it, father encouraged the juvenile court’s choice to order the state-requested psychosexual evaluation and was “actively instrumental in bringing about [the] alleged error.” State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (internal quota…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Shelby
See Breazile, 189 Or App at 146-47 (finding compelling circumstances when the defen- dant was questioned by three corrections officials in the lieu- tenant’s office, not informed he could end the interview, and told he could face administrative sanctions related to mari- juana found in his footlocker); see also State v. Hutchins, 214 Or App 260, 269 , 164 P3d 318 (2007), rev allowed, 344 Or 280 (2008), appeal dismissed, 345 Or 690 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (that inmate was informed that his silence could 430 State v. Shelby be used against him weighed in favor of compelling circum- stance…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hersey v. Leon
See, e.g., State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Underwood
See, e.g., State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214 , 203 P3d 274 , rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (a party who is actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot obtain reversal on appeal based on that error).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
LOVELESS.
v.
LOVELESS.
S057291.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jul 29, 2009.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
Petition for review denied.