Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Goodenoughgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Goodenough, 264 Or App 211, 215 , 331 P3d 1076 , rev den, 356 Or 400 (2014) (concluding that the defendant invited the error when she and the state invoked the incorrect statutory framework). 2025See State v. Goodenough, 264 Or App 211, 215 , 331 P3d 1076 , rev den, 356 Or 400 (2014) (concluding that the defendant invited the error when she and the state invoked the incorrect statutory framework). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wiltsegreen1 sentence2025Cf. Wiltse, 373 Or at 22-25 (consid- ering the gravity of an error, whether the defendant invited the error, and whether the purposes of preservation were served in deciding whether to exercise the court’s discretion to reach the error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dallavisgreen2 sentences2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). 2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). | 1 | 1 |
Harshbarger v. Klamath Cnty.green1 sentence2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Saunders
green
2 sentences2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). 2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. M. B.
green
1 sentence2021“The [invited error] rule applies when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a certain way under cir- cumstances 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.” State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102, 106 , 429 P3d 1049 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 294 (2019); see also State v. Dallavis, 294 Or App 567, 575 , 432 P3d 282 (2018), rev den, 364 Or 535 (2019) (by representing that he had no objec- tions to being tried on a defective indictment, the defendant invited the error in proceeding to trial). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Belden
green
1 sentence2020In Harris, the Supreme Court held that (1) serv- ing a subpoena alone would not be sufficient to establish that the state exhausted all reasonable efforts to ensure a witness’s appearance at trial, but that, in that case, Cite as 303 Or App 438 (2020) 445 (2) the defendant invited error when he objected to a one-day set-over to allow the state to secure the subject witness’s live testimony. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.