203 Oregon opinions name it 5 courts 1991–2026 53 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.green2 sentences2026In doing so, we consider a nonexclusive list of factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to exer- cise our discretion to correct a plain error: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991). 86 State v. Reamer In light of the record in this case, we conclude that the gravity of the e 2026In doing so, we consider a nonexclusive list of factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to exer- cise our discretion to correct a plain error: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991). 86 State v. Reamer In light of the record in this case, we conclude that the gravity of the e | 13 | 194 |
State v. Hortongreen2 sentences2025When deciding whether to exercise our discretion to consider a plain error, we may consider, but are not limited to, the following factors: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some man- ner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” Ailes v. P 2025When deciding whether to exercise our discretion to consider a plain error, we may consider, but are not limited to, the following factors: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some man- ner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” Ailes v. P | 5 | 6 |
State v. McKinney/Shiffergreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 333 , 505 P3d 946 (2022) (choosing to exercise discretion to correct plain error, where the defendant “did not make the precise argument” at trial that he made on appeal but did challenge the ongoing viability of the controlling precedent “and contested the culpable mental state that should apply”). 406 State v. Efimoff jury instructions to that effect. 2026See, e.g., State v. McKinney/Shiffer, 369 Or 325, 333 , 505 P3d 946 (2022) (choosing to exercise discretion to correct plain error, where the defendant “did not make the precise argument” at trial that he made on appeal but did challenge the ongoing viability of the controlling precedent “and contested the culpable mental state that should apply”). 406 State v. Efimoff jury instructions to that effect. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fultsgreen2 sentences2024Additional factors can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it, State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007),3 and whether the opposing party played a role in causing the error, State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 326-27 , 518 P3d 903 (2022). 2008The court noted the factors listed in Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), that bear on our exercise of discretion: “ ‘[T]he competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.’ ” 343 O | 2 | 22 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Meadows, I 2025See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Meadows, I | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2025The Supreme Court has “frequently warned that the decision to reverse based on plain error should be made with utmost caution because it is contrary to the strong policies requiring preservation and raising of error.” Ortiz, 372 Or at 666 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The Supreme Court has “frequently warned that the decision to reverse based on plain error should be made with utmost caution because it is contrary to the strong policies requiring preservation and raising of error.” Ortiz, 372 Or at 666 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Inmangreen2 sentences2026See State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 935 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (“[T]he ease with which any error could have been avoided or corrected should be a significant fac- tor in an appellate court’s decision whether to exercise its discretion to correct a plain, but unpreserved, error.”). 2026See State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 935 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (“[T]he ease with which any error could have been avoided or corrected should be a significant fac- tor in an appellate court’s decision whether to exercise its discretion to correct a plain, but unpreserved, error.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Calhoungreen2 sentences2025See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Meadows, I 2025See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Meadows, I | 2 | 2 |
State v. Amorosogreen2 sentences2025See State v. Amoroso, 336 Or App 732 , 738 n5, 562 P3d 641 (2024) (issue discussed during “ten-minute off-the-record conversation” with court and counsel was unpreserved). 3 Counsel should remain cognizant of the risks of untimely objection. 2025See State v. Amoroso, 336 Or App 732 , 738 n5, 562 P3d 641 (2024) (issue discussed during “ten-minute off-the-record conversation” with court and counsel was unpreserved). 3 Counsel should remain cognizant of the risks of untimely objection. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barrgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Barr, 62 Or App 46, 51 , 660 P2d 169 (1983) (evidence that defendant fled the state after being released on bail was admissible as evidence of guilt). 2024See State v. Barr, 62 Or App 46, 51 , 660 P2d 169 (1983) (evidence that defendant fled the state after being released on bail was admissible as evidence of guilt). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vanornumgreen2 sentences2023“That discretion entails making a prudential Cite as 371 Or 573 (2023) 591 call that takes into account an array of considerations,” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 630 , 317 P3d 889 (2013), including: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some man- ner, presented with both sides of the iss 2023“That discretion entails making a prudential Cite as 371 Or 573 (2023) 591 call that takes into account an array of considerations,” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 630 , 317 P3d 889 (2013), including: “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some man- ner, presented with both sides of the iss | 1 | 5 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2023The majority concludes that there was a plain error and it exercises its discretion to consider the error because it was not harmless. 325 Or App at 139-40 . 2023The majority concludes that there was a plain error and it exercises its discretion to consider the error because it was not harmless. 325 Or App at 139-40. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Henrygreen1 sentence2021Vanornum, 354 Or at 630 ; see also Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 & n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (explaining that a court’s decision to review an unpreserved error “should be made with utmost caution” and identifying factors that the court may consider, including “the competing interests of Cite as 315 Or App 169 (2021) 175 the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the cas | 1 | 1 |
| Peeples v. Lampertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mejia-Espinozagreen | 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. Coverstone
green
2 sentences2019App. at 716 -17 , 320 P.3d 670 ("When a plain error is established, we still must determine if it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error, considering, among other things, 'the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court's attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another *152 way.' " (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. , 312 Or. 376 , 382 n. 6, 823 P.2d 956 (1991) )). 2016We consider, among other things, “the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way.” Id. at 716-17 (citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991)). | 6 | 2014–2019 |
State v. Wiltse
green
2 sentences2026Specifically, the court may consider “ ‘the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, pre- sented with both sides of the issue and given an opportu- nity to correct any error.’ ” Id. at 11 (quoting Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6). 2024In Ailes, this court set out a nonexclusive list of factors that a court may consider when determining whether to exercise its discretion to reverse based on a plain error: Cite as 373 Or 1 (2024) 11 “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some man- ner, presented with both sides of the issu | 4 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Medina
green
2 sentences2017In addition, with respect to sentencing errors specifically, we look to “whether the defendant encouraged the trial court’s imposition of the erroneous sentence, the possibility that the defendant made a strategic choice not to object to the sentence, the role of other sentences in the case, and the interests of the justice system in avoiding unnecessary, repetitive sentencing proceedings.” State v. Medina, 234 Or App 684, 687 , 228 P3d 723 (2010). 2017In addition, with respect to sentencing errors specifically, we look to “whether the defendant encouraged the trial court’s imposition of the erroneous sentence, the possibility that the defendant made a strategic choice not to object to the sentence, the role of other sentences in the case, and the interests of the justice system in avoiding unnecessary, repetitive sentencing proceedings.” State v. Medina, 234 Or App 684, 687 , 228 P3d 723 (2010). | 4 | 2011–2017 |
State v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2008We exercise our discretion sparingly, bearing in mind that, consistently with State v. Fults, 343 Or 515 , 173 P3d 822 (2007), and State v. Ramirez, 343 Or 505 , 173 P3d 817 (2007), any correction of unpreserved error must be fully and carefully justified. 2008We exercise our discretion sparingly, bearing in mind that, consistently with State v. Fults, 343 Or 515 , 173 P3d 822 (2007), and State v. Ramirez, 343 Or 505 , 173 P3d 817 (2007), any correction of unpreserved error must be fully and carefully justified. | 4 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Chitwood
green
2 sentences2024Additional factors can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it, State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007),3 and whether the opposing party played a role in causing the error, State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 326-27 , 518 P3d 903 (2022). 2024Additional factors can include whether the party alleging a plain error encouraged the error or made a strategic choice not to object to it, State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007),3 and whether the opposing party played a role in causing the error, State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305, 326-27 , 518 P3d 903 (2022). | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Alexander v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2010The state’s concession also satisfies the policies behind the general rule of preservation and raising of error in that the adversary is not denied the opportunity to present its position to the court.” Moreover, the error could be corrected on remand with a minimum expenditure of judicial time and resources, and “[tjhus, it does not undercut or offend notions of judicial efficiency.” Alexander v. Johnson, 164 Or App 235, 238 , 990 P2d 929 (1999). 2010The state’s concession also satisfies the policies behind the general rule of preservation and raising of error in that the adversary is not denied the opportunity to present its position to the court.” Moreover, the error could be corrected on remand with a minimum expenditure of judicial time and resources, and “[tjhus, it does not undercut or offend notions of judicial efficiency.” Alexander v. Johnson, 164 Or App 235, 238 , 990 P2d 929 (1999). | 3 | 2003–2013 |
State v. Jury
green
2 sentences2018As we have noted, Ailes 's second step acts as a "baffle" on free-wheeling consideration of "plain error." State v. Jury , 185 Or. 2005Jury, 185 Or App at 138 . *618 “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court was, in some manner, presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” *619 Defendant maintains that our decision in State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 83 , 104 P3d 616 (2005), compels us to consider t | 2 | 2005–2018 |
State v. Avent
green
2 sentences2015State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 183 , 302 P2d 549 (1956). 2015State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 183 , 302 P2d 549 (1956). | 2 | 1991–2015 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2015State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 183 , 302 P2d 549 (1956). 2015State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 183 , 302 P2d 549 (1956). | 2 | 1991–2015 |
State v. Hatchell
green
2 sentences2025Viewing the record as a whole, the evidence of the assaultive conduct and resulting injuries in this case, and the absence of an alter- native theory at trial as to defendant’s mental state regard- ing the result of his conduct, the likelihood that the verdict would have been different “is an extremely low likelihood.” Horton, 327 Or App at 266 ; see id. (declining to exercise dis- cretion to correct the trial court’s error in failing to instruct the jury on the culpable mental state requirement for the value element of criminal mischief); see also Inman, 275 Or App at 936 (“[T]he error in thi 2025Viewing the record as a whole, the evidence of the assaultive conduct and resulting injuries in this case, and the absence of an alter- native theory at trial as to defendant’s mental state regard- ing the result of his conduct, the likelihood that the verdict would have been different “is an extremely low likelihood.” Horton, 327 Or App at 266 ; see id. (declining to exercise dis- cretion to correct the trial court’s error in failing to instruct the jury on the culpable mental state requirement for the value element of criminal mischief); see also Inman, 275 Or App at 936 (“[T]he error in thi | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Atwood
green
1 sentence2025State v. Atwood, 332 Or App 495 , 498 n 2, 2 “[W]hether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served” may factor into our decision whether to exercise discre- tion for plain error review. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Gayman
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 312 Or App 193 (2021) 203 Here, the gravity of the error and the ends of jus- tice move us to exercise our discretion to correct the error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 310 Or App 389 (2021) 401 Here, father’s asserted error is not plain, because it is reasonably in dispute. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2021The Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Morales, 367 Or 222 , 476 P3d 954 (2020), is dispositive on whether the claimed error in this case is plain. 2021The Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Morales, 367 Or 222 , 476 P3d 954 (2020), is dispositive on whether the claimed error in this case is plain. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kirkland
green
2 sentences2021Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), a “court may only order restitution for economic damages that were caused by the defendant’s offense against the victim, or by defendant’s other criminal activities.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 424 , 342 P3d 163 (2015). 2021Under ORS 137.106(1)(a), a “court may only order restitution for economic damages that were caused by the defendant’s offense against the victim, or by defendant’s other criminal activities.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 424 , 342 P3d 163 (2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reneau v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
green
1 sentence2020In deciding whether to review a plain error, we may consider “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of justice in the par- ticular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requir- ing preservation of error have been served in the case in another way, i.e., whether the trial court, in some manner, was presented with both sides of the issue and given an opportunity to correct any error.” Id. at 180 n 11 (citing Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Ulery
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020), we discussed those factors to explain why we considered it appropriate to consider an unpreserved challenge to the trial court’s receipt of nonunanimous verdicts. 2020In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020), we discussed those factors to explain why we considered it appropriate to consider an unpreserved challenge to the trial court’s receipt of nonunanimous verdicts. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Gornick green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Lowell green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Montwheeler green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Garlitz green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Hotelling v. Walther green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Huff green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Rudnick green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Gray green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Digesti green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Loveless green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Kammeyer green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Sosa green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Marroquin green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Ice green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Michael v. CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Banks green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Barber green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Cox green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Page green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.