requisites error in Oregon

2008Accordingly, because asserted "plain error" is determined by reference to "the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial," State v. Jury, 185 Or.App. 132, 136 , 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den., 335 Or. 504 , 72 P.3d 636 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 355 , 800 P.2d 259 (1990).

2008Accordingly, because asserted "plain error" is determined by reference to "the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial," State v. Jury, 185 Or.App. 132, 136 , 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den., 335 Or. 504 , 72 P.3d 636 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 355 , 800 P.2d 259 (1990).

2013One such exception is for a search incident to arrest, and, in Owens, 302 Or at 200 , the court summarized the requisites of that exception: “[T]he arrest must be for a crime, evidence of which reasonably could be concealed on the arrestee’s person or in the belongings in his or her immediate possession at the time of the arrest.

2008Accordingly, because asserted "plain error" is determined by reference to "the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial," State v. Jury, 185 Or.App. 132, 136 , 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den., 335 Or. 504 , 72 P.3d 636 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 355 , 800 P.2d 259 (1990).

2008Accordingly, because asserted “plain error” is determined by reference to “the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial,” State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

2008Accordingly, because asserted "plain error" is determined by reference to "the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial," State v. Jury, 185 Or.App. 132, 136 , 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den., 335 Or. 504 , 72 P.3d 636 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 355 , 800 P.2d 259 (1990).

2008Accordingly, because asserted “plain error” is determined by reference to “the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial,” State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136 , 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003), the claim of error satisfies the requisites of error apparent on the face of the record, as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

2007Further, to the extent that defendant now invokes Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), as overruling Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404 , 92 S Ct 1628 , 32 L Ed 2d 184 (1972), sub silentio, we have previously rejected that contention in the context of a preserved assignment of error.

2007Further, to the extent that defendant now invokes Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), as overruling Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404 , 92 S Ct 1628 , 32 L Ed 2d 184 (1972), sub silentio, we have previously rejected that contention in the context of a preserved assignment of error.

2007Further, to the extent that defendant now invokes Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), as overruling Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404 , 92 S Ct 1628 , 32 L Ed 2d 184 (1972), sub silentio, we have previously rejected that contention in the context of a preserved assignment of error.

2007Further, to the extent that defendant now invokes Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), as overruling Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404 , 92 S Ct 1628 , 32 L Ed 2d 184 (1972), sub silentio, we have previously rejected that contention in the context of a preserved assignment of error.

2000Next, in Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 352 , 745 P2d 775 (1987), this court explained: “Compensation is not payable under the Workers’ Compensation Law for symptoms alone, but to the extent that symptoms, such as pain, dizziness, nervousness, etc., cause loss of function of the body or its parts and, in the case of unscheduled disability, resulting loss of earning capacity, the disabling effects of the symptoms are to be considered in fixing awards for disability. * * * The mere ‘waxing 1 of a physical condition or of a symptom, whether or not anticipated, will not amount to a worsening sufficien

2000Next, in Gwynn v. SAIF, 304 Or 345, 352 , 745 P2d 775 (1987), this court explained: “Compensation is not payable under the Workers’ Compensation Law for symptoms alone, but to the extent that symptoms, such as pain, dizziness, nervousness, etc., cause loss of function of the body or its parts and, in the case of unscheduled disability, resulting loss of earning capacity, the disabling effects of the symptoms are to be considered in fixing awards for disability. * * * The mere ‘waxing 1 of a physical condition or of a symptom, whether or not anticipated, will not amount to a worsening sufficien

1894Section 3669 of Hill’s Code provides that any person furnishing material to be used in the construction, alteration, etc., of any building, etc., shall have a lien upon the same for labor done or material furnished “at the instance” of the owner of the building or his agent; “and every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or person having charge of the construction, alteration, or repair, in whole or in part, of any building or other improvement as aforesaid, shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purposes of this act.” Section 3673 prescribes the manner of perfecting the

1894Section 3669 of Hill’s Code provides that any person furnishing material to be used in the construction, alteration, etc., of any building, etc., shall have a lien upon the same for labor done or material furnished “at the instance” of the owner of the building or his agent; “and every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or person having charge of the construction, alteration, or repair, in whole or in part, of any building or other improvement as aforesaid, shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purposes of this act.” Section 3673 prescribes the manner of perfecting the

1894Section 3669 of Hill’s Code provides that any person furnishing material to be used in the construction, alteration, etc., of any building, etc., shall have a lien upon the same for labor done or material furnished “at the instance” of the owner of the building or his agent; “and every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or person having charge of the construction, alteration, or repair, in whole or in part, of any building or other improvement as aforesaid, shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purposes of this act.” Section 3673 prescribes the manner of perfecting the

1894Section 3669 of Hill’s Code provides that any person furnishing material to be used in the construction, alteration, etc., of any building, etc., shall have a lien upon the same for labor done or material furnished “at the instance” of the owner of the building or his agent; “and every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or person having charge of the construction, alteration, or repair, in whole or in part, of any building or other improvement as aforesaid, shall be held to be the agent of the owner for the purposes of this act.” Section 3673 prescribes the manner of perfecting the