nonexclusive factors in Oregon

2018The nonexclusive factors for us to consider in deciding whether to exercise that discretion are "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 trial 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 382 n 6, 823 P.2d 956 .

2018The nonexclusive factors for us to consider in deciding whether to exercise that discretion are "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 trial 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 382 n 6, 823 P.2d 956 .

2025In applying those factors, courts look at the totality of the cir- cumstances, with the “overarching inquiry” being “whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere 430 State v. Peloquin that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 , 136 P3d 22 (2006).

2025In applying those factors, courts look at the totality of the cir- cumstances, with the “overarching inquiry” being “whether the officers created the sort of police-dominated atmosphere 430 State v. Peloquin that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 , 136 P3d 22 (2006).

2014Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, the court considers only claims of error that are “preserved in the lower court *** provided that the appellate court may consider an error of law apparent on the record.” As explained in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), an error is plain if (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is “not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) the error appears on the record, meaning that “[wje need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” In deciding whether to exercise our discretion to correct an unpreserved error, we apply the non

2014Pursuant to ORAP 5.45, the court considers only claims of error that are “preserved in the lower court *** provided that the appellate court may consider an error of law apparent on the record.” As explained in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), an error is plain if (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is “not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) the error appears on the record, meaning that “[wje need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it.” In deciding whether to exercise our discretion to correct an unpreserved error, we apply the non

2019The trial court properly evaluated each of the nonexclusive factors articulated in Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145 , 986 P2d 54 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000), and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint.

2019The trial court properly evaluated each of the nonexclusive factors articulated in Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145 , 986 P2d 54 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000), and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint.

2018The Supreme Court has cautioned that a court's decision to reach an unpreserved issue as plain error must be made "with utmost caution," id. at 382 , 823 P.2d 956 , and should be reserved for " 'rare and exceptional cases[,]' " State v. Gornick , 340 Or 160 , 166, 130 P.3d 780 (2006) (quoting Hotelling v. Walther , 174 Or 381 , 385-86, 148 P.2d 933 (1944) ).

2018The Supreme Court has cautioned that a court's decision to reach an unpreserved issue as plain error must be made "with utmost caution," id. at 382 , 823 P.2d 956 , and should be reserved for " 'rare and exceptional cases[,]' " State v. Gornick , 340 Or 160 , 166, 130 P.3d 780 (2006) (quoting Hotelling v. Walther , 174 Or 381 , 385-86, 148 P.2d 933 (1944) ).

2018The Supreme Court has cautioned that a court's decision to reach an unpreserved issue as plain error must be made "with utmost caution," id. at 382 , 823 P.2d 956 , and should be reserved for " 'rare and exceptional cases[,]' " State v. Gornick , 340 Or 160 , 166, 130 P.3d 780 (2006) (quoting Hotelling v. Walther , 174 Or 381 , 385-86, 148 P.2d 933 (1944) ).

2018The Supreme Court has cautioned that a court's decision to reach an unpreserved issue as plain error must be made "with utmost caution," id. at 382 , 823 P.2d 956 , and should be reserved for " 'rare and exceptional cases[,]' " State v. Gornick , 340 Or 160 , 166, 130 P.3d 780 (2006) (quoting Hotelling v. Walther , 174 Or 381 , 385-86, 148 P.2d 933 (1944) ).

2016In my view, the actual application of the nonexclusive factors established in State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 , 217 P3d 659 (2009), rather than simple fact matching, compels the conclusion that, as applied to this defendant, the 75-month mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate in violation of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 It is undisputed that any form of sexual abuse of a child or an adult is an extremely serious criminal act which merits imprisonment. 2 That said, the court made it clear in Rodriguez/Buck that “the proportionality requi

2016In my view, the actual application of the nonexclusive factors established in State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 , 217 P3d 659 (2009), rather than simple fact matching, compels the conclusion that, as applied to this defendant, the 75-month mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate in violation of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 It is undisputed that any form of sexual abuse of a child or an adult is an extremely serious criminal act which merits imprisonment. 2 That said, the court made it clear in Rodriguez/Buck that “the proportionality requi

2015State 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).

2013Id. at 492 .

2012“A familiar but nonexclusive test for determining whether discretion has been abused is whether the decision reached was ‘clearly against reason and evidence.’ ” EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Davis, 174 Or App 524, 528 , 26 P3d 185 (2001) (citation omitted).

2012“A familiar but nonexclusive test for determining whether discretion has been abused is whether the decision reached was ‘clearly against reason and evidence.’ ” EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Davis, 174 Or App 524, 528 , 26 P3d 185 (2001) (citation omitted).

2001A familiar but nonexclusive test for determining whether discretion has been abused is whether the decision reached was “clearly against reason and evidence.” Id.

1998In Brown , the court said that when applying OEC 401 and OEC 702 to determine whether novel scientific evidence is admissible, a trial court must consider the following nonexclusive factors: “(1) The technique’s general acceptance in the field; “(2) The expert’s qualifications and stature; “(3) The use which has been made of the technique; “(4) The potential rate of error; “(5) The existence of specialized literature; “(6) The novelty of the invention; and “(7) The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert.” Brown, 297 Or at 417 .

1998The court further explained that “[t]he existence or nonexistence of these factors may all enter into the court’s final decision on admissibility of the novel scientific evidence, but need not necessarily do so.” Id.