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.
28 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 20 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. Clemente-Perezgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“[T]he primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to fos- ter a full development of the record.”). 2025See State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“[T]he primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to fos- ter a full development of the record.”). | 9 | 18 |
Peeples v. Lampertgreen2 sentences2024See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 , 219- 20, 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that the primary pur- poses of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, allow the oppos- ing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record). 2024See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 , 219- 20, 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that the primary pur- poses of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, allow the oppos- ing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record). | 3 | 10 |
State v. Tippettsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Tippets, 239 Or App 429 , 434 n 3, 244 P3d 891 (2010) (remanding for new evidentiary hear- ing when defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court and as a result the state did not have an opportunity to present additional evidence in support of restitution); cf. State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“[T]he primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to fos- ter a full deve 2025See State v. Tippets, 239 Or App 429 , 434 n 3, 244 P3d 891 (2010) (remanding for new evidentiary hear- ing when defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court and as a result the state did not have an opportunity to present additional evidence in support of restitution); cf. State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015) (“[T]he primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to fos- ter a full deve | 2 | 2 |
Karuk Tribe of California v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation Districtgreen1 sentence2020See Dept of Human Services v. S. M., 256 Or App 15 , 24 n 7, 300 P3d 1254 (2013), aff’d, 355 Or 241 , 323 P3d 947 (2014) (so distinguishing). 124 Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Human Services v. S. M.green2 sentences2020See Dept of Human Services v. S. M., 256 Or App 15 , 24 n 7, 300 P3d 1254 (2013), aff’d, 355 Or 241 , 323 P3d 947 (2014) (so distinguishing). 124 Dept. of Human Services v. T. 2020See Dept of Human Services v. S. M., 256 Or App 15 , 24 n 7, 300 P3d 1254 (2013), aff’d, 355 Or 241 , 323 P3d 947 (2014) (so distinguishing). 124 Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Human Services v. S. M.green1 sentence2020See Dept of Human Services v. S. M., 256 Or App 15 , 24 n 7, 300 P3d 1254 (2013), aff’d, 355 Or 241 , 323 P3d 947 (2014) (so distinguishing). 124 Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haynesgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , State v. Haynes , 352 Or. 321 , 335, 284 P.3d 473 (2012) ("we examine the individual circumstances of *299 the case at hand" (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) )). 2018See, e.g. , State v. Haynes , 352 Or. 321 , 335, 284 P.3d 473 (2012) ("we examine the individual circumstances of *299 the case at hand" (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) )). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parkinsgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , State v. Haynes , 352 Or. 321 , 335, 284 P.3d 473 (2012) ("we examine the individual circumstances of *299 the case at hand" (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) )). 2018See, e.g. , State v. Haynes , 352 Or. 321 , 335, 284 P.3d 473 (2012) ("we examine the individual circumstances of *299 the case at hand" (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) )). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vanornumgreen2 sentences2018The purposes of the rule requiring preservation of error are "to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record." State v. Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. 745 , 752, 359 P.3d 232 (2015) ; see also State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 632, 317 P.3d 889 (2013) (Preservation rule "ensure[s] that trial courts have an opportunity to understand and correct their own possible errors and that the parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an 2018The purposes of the rule requiring preservation of error are "to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record." State v. Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. 745 , 752, 359 P.3d 232 (2015) ; see also State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614 , 632, 317 P.3d 889 (2013) (Preservation rule "ensure[s] that trial courts have an opportunity to understand and correct their own possible errors and that the parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an | 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. Bordeaux
green
2 sentences2026“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preserva- tion rule—to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an oppor- tunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” State v. Bordeaux, 323 Or App 60, 70 , 522 P3d 900 (2022), rev den, 371 Or 60 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preserva- tion rule—to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an oppor- tunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” State v. Bordeaux, 323 Or App 60, 70 , 522 P3d 900 (2022), rev den, 371 Or 60 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Morrow
green
2 sentences2025Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the same preservation rules that bind all other parties.” State v. Morrow, 192 Or App 441, 444 , 86 P3d 70, rev den, 337 Or 282 (2004). 2025Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the same preservation rules that bind all other parties.” State v. Morrow, 192 Or App 441, 444 , 86 P3d 70, rev den, 337 Or 282 (2004). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. K.J.B. (In re K.J.B.)
green
2 sentences2026B., 362 Or 777, 790 , 416 P3d 291 (2018) (“The purposes of the rule requiring preservation of error are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an oppor- tunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 2026B., 362 Or 777, 790 , 416 P3d 291 (2018) (“The purposes of the rule requiring preservation of error are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an oppor- tunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Kelley
neutral
2 sentences2021It is true, as defendant points out, that, in State v. Kelley, 293 Or App 90, 97 , 426 P3d 226 (2018), we held that an explicit reference to OEC 403 “is not required if the cir- cumstances otherwise suffice to place the court and oppos- ing parties on notice of defendant’s contention that any pro- bative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” But that was not the case here. 2021It is true, as defendant points out, that, in State v. Kelley, 293 Or App 90, 97 , 426 P3d 226 (2018), we held that an explicit reference to OEC 403 “is not required if the cir- cumstances otherwise suffice to place the court and oppos- ing parties on notice of defendant’s contention that any pro- bative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.” But that was not the case here. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Laune
green
2 sentences2020“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportu- nity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” State v. Laune, 303 Or App 541, 547 , 464 P3d 459 (2020) (citing Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008)). 2020“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportu- nity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full devel- opment of the record.” State v. Laune, 303 Or App 541, 547 , 464 P3d 459 (2020) (citing Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Gray
green
1 sentence2018App. 799 , 806, 401 P.3d 1241 (2017), rev. den. , 362 Or. 482 , 412 P.3d 199 (2018) (quoting State v. Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. 745 , 752, 359 P.3d 232 (2015) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Home Forward v. Graham
green
1 sentence2018App. 799 , 806, 401 P.3d 1241 (2017), rev. den. , 362 Or. 482 , 412 P.3d 199 (2018) (quoting State v. Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. 745 , 752, 359 P.3d 232 (2015) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Gray
green
2 sentences2018"We evaluate whether an issue is adequately preserved in light of the underlying purposes of the preservation rule-'to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.' " State v. Gray , 286 Or. 2018App. 799 , 806, 401 P.3d 1241 (2017), rev. den. , 362 Or. 482 , 412 P.3d 199 (2018) (quoting State v. Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. 745 , 752, 359 P.3d 232 (2015) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2017In practical terms, a party’s argument to the trial court must be “specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). 2017In practical terms, a party’s argument to the trial court must be “specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.