Orr v. Hill (2010)

See DiNicola v. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503, 281 Or App 706, 715 , 383 P3d 924 (2016), opinion adh’d to as modified on recons, 283 Or App 914 , 389 P3d 421 , rev den, 361 Or 543 (2017) (noting that “[w]hether a trial court’s order is consistent” with the stat- utes regarding nonprofit corporations “or exceeds its scope presents a question of law that is reviewed for legal error”); State v. Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 267 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (201…

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).

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 guideline…

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).

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).

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.

See State v. Selmer, 231 Or App 31, 35 , 217 P3d 1092 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010).

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).

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).

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).

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)).

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”).

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.”).