prejudicial error in Oregon

25 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2026 6 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Dowtygreen orctapp · 2019 · cited in 5 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 774-75 , 452 P3d 983 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 259 (2020) (recognizing that the standard for prejudicial error in the probation context is equivalent to that of harmless error in the trial context). 2025State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 774-75 , 452 P3d 983 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 259 (2020) (recognizing that the standard for prejudicial error in the probation context is equivalent to that of harmless error in the trial context).	1	5
Huntley v. Reedgreen or · 1976 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1982–2004 2 sentences 2004See Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or. 591, 594 , 556 P.2d 122 (1976) (stating that, in Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer Steamship Co., 126 Or. 694, 703 , 270 P. 759 (1928), the Supreme Court had held that, even though it was error for the trial court to have instructed the jury on preparation of the verdict "in counsel's absence, such error was not sufficient to cause a reversal because the record showed the instruction to have been proper"). 2004See Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or. 591, 594 , 556 P.2d 122 (1976) (stating that, in Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer Steamship Co., 126 Or. 694, 703 , 270 P. 759 (1928), the Supreme Court had held that, even though it was error for the trial court to have instructed the jury on preparation of the verdict "in counsel's absence, such error was not sufficient to cause a reversal because the record showed the instruction to have been proper").	1	2
Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co.green or · 1923 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1923–1954 2 sentences 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 . 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 .	1	2
Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer Steamship Co.green or · 1928 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or. 591, 594 , 556 P.2d 122 (1976) (stating that, in Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer Steamship Co., 126 Or. 694, 703 , 270 P. 759 (1928), the Supreme Court had held that, even though it was error for the trial court to have instructed the jury on preparation of the verdict "in counsel's absence, such error was not sufficient to cause a reversal because the record showed the instruction to have been proper"). 2004See Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or. 591, 594 , 556 P.2d 122 (1976) (stating that, in Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer Steamship Co., 126 Or. 694, 703 , 270 P. 759 (1928), the Supreme Court had held that, even though it was error for the trial court to have instructed the jury on preparation of the verdict "in counsel's absence, such error was not sufficient to cause a reversal because the record showed the instruction to have been proper").	1	1
State v. Millergreen or · 1985 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986). 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).	1	1
Moore v. Volkswagenwerk, A. G.green scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 1 sentence 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).	1	1
Hastings v. Top Cut Feedlots, Inc.green or · 1979 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982See Hastings v. Top Cop Cut Feedlots, Inc., 285 Or 261, 264-65 , 590 P2d 1210 (1979); Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or 591 , 556 P2d 122 (1976). 1982See Hastings v. Top Cop Cut Feedlots, Inc., 285 Or 261, 264-65 , 590 P2d 1210 (1979); Huntley v. Reed, 276 Or 591 , 556 P2d 122 (1976).	1	1
Coorough v. DeLaygreen calctapp · 1959 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971 1 sentence 1971Pacific Indemnity Co. v. McDonald, 107 F2d 446, 449 (9th Cir 1939); Coorough v. DeLay, 171 Cal App 2d 41, 339 P2d 963, 967 (1959).	1	1
Newton Et Ux. v. Peay Et Ux.green or · 1952 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 2 sentences 1959See Newton et ux v. Peay et ux, 196 Or 76 , 245 P2d 870 ; Tracy and Baker v. City of Astoria, 193 Or 118 , 237 P2d 954 ; Carnahan Mfg. 1959See Newton et ux v. Peay et ux, 196 Or 76 , 245 P2d 870 ; Tracy and Baker v. City of Astoria, 193 Or 118 , 237 P2d 954 ; Carnahan Mfg.	1	1
Duniway v. Hadleygreen or · 1919 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1923–1923 2 sentences 1923Although the trial court assigned as a reason for the order allowing a new trial, the giving of a prejudicial instruction concerning delivery, the order must be affirmed if during the trial any prejudicial error was committed of which the respondents can complain: Duniway v. Hadley, 91 Or. 343, 346 ( 178 Pac. 942 ). 1923Although the trial court assigned as a reason for the order allowing a new trial, the giving of a prejudicial instruction concerning delivery, the order must be affirmed if during the trial any prejudicial error was committed of which the respondents can complain: Duniway v. Hadley, 91 Or. 343, 346 ( 178 Pac. 942 ).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Timmins v. Hale green or · 1927 2 sentences 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 . 1935R. 262), such order “must be affirmed if during the trial any prejudicial error was committed of which the respondents can complain * * In Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or. 24 (256 P.770), it is said: “* * * there is a clear and well-recognized distinction between the power of the trial court on the one hand to set aside a judgment and grant a new trial, and the power of the Supreme Court to reverse a judgment upon appeal.” *587 It is immaterial that no exception was taken to the ruling of the court.	3	1935–1954
Lyons v. Browning green or · 1943 2 sentences 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 . 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 .	2	1951–1954
State v. Davis green or · 2003 2 sentences 2026E.g., State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 2026E.g., State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003).	1	2026–2026
State v. Klein green orctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2012State v. Klein, 243 Or App 1 , 258 P3d 528 (2011). 2012State v. Klein, 243 Or App 1 , 258 P3d 528 (2011).	1	2012–2012
Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. green orctapp · 1998 2 sentences 1998Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 152 Or.App. 421, 430 , 954 P.2d 829 , rev. allowed 327 Or. 317 (1998). 1998Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 152 Or.App. 421, 430 , 954 P.2d 829 , rev. allowed 327 Or. 317 (1998).	1	1998–1998
Cunningham v. Montgomery green orctapp · 1996 2 sentences 1998Cunningham v. Montgomery, 143 Or App 171, 181 , 921 P2d 1355 , rev den 324 Or 487 (1996). 1998Cunningham v. Montgomery, 143 Or App 171, 181 , 921 P2d 1355 , rev den 324 Or 487 (1996).	1	1998–1998
Woosley v. Dunning green or · 1974 1 sentence 1997To rise to the level of prejudicial error, however, the error must have affected the rights of a party substantially. 9 The court in Woolsey also noted that the defendant could have subpoenaed either the pathologist who performed the autopsy or other physicians who had knowledge of the information contained in the slides, and also could have gained access to the slides by subpoenaing them for production at trial. 268 Or at 250 .	1	1997–1997
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Scott green orctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986). 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).	1	1989–1989
State v. Mendenhall green orctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986). 1989See ORAP 7.19; State Dept. of Trans. v. Scott, 59 Or App 25 , 28 n 2, 650 P2d 158 (1982); State v. Mendenhall, 53 Or App 174,176 , 631 P2d 791 (1981); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-21 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den 475 US 1141 (1986).	1	1989–1989
State v. White green orctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1984Although it may have been a technical error to reinstruct the jury in counsels’ absence, it was not a prejudicial error that requires a mistrial.” 55 Or App at 732 . 1984Although it may have been a technical error to reinstruct the jury in counsels' absence, it was not a prejudicial error that requires a mistrial." 55 Or.	1	1984–1984
State v. Van Hooser green or · 1973 2 sentences 1984Assuming that admission of the complainant’s hypnosis-enhanced testimony was error, we still must judge its effect under the prejudicial error test of State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or 19 , 511 P2d 359 (1973). 1984Assuming that admission of the complainant’s hypnosis-enhanced testimony was error, we still must judge its effect under the prejudicial error test of State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or 19 , 511 P2d 359 (1973).	1	1984–1984
Wood v. Southern Pacific Co. neutral or · 1959 2 sentences 1980"Having held that the defendant properly objected to the evidence relating to the amendment thereof, and since the plaintiff by his said amendment interjected an entire new element of damage, substantial in its nature, without any advance notice whatsoever to his adversary, we hold that the trial court committed prejudicial error permitting the same. * * " 216 Or. at 72-73 , 337 P.2d at 784 . 1980"Having held that the defendant properly objected to the evidence relating to the amendment thereof, and since the plaintiff by his said amendment interjected an entire new element of damage, substantial in its nature, without any advance notice whatsoever to his adversary, we hold that the trial court committed prejudicial error permitting the same. * *" 216 Or. at 72-73 , 337 P.2d at 784 .	1	1980–1980
State v. Pitts green orctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1977In our previous opinion in this case, State v. Pitts, 29 Or App 59 , 562 P2d 562 (1977), we held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by improperly admitting evidence of certain acts and statements of the defendant who was charged with committing arson by setting a garage afire. 1977In our previous opinion in this case, State v. Pitts, 29 Or App 59 , 562 P2d 562 (1977), we held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by improperly admitting evidence of certain acts and statements of the defendant who was charged with committing arson by setting a garage afire.	1	1977–1977
Strandholm v. General Construction Co. green or · 1963 2 sentences 1964In such a case it is immaterial on review whether a proper objection or any objection was made, Strandholm v. General Const. Co., 235 Or 145, 152 , 382 P2d 843 . 1964In such a case it is immaterial on review whether a proper objection or any objection was made, Strandholm v. General Const. Co., 235 Or 145, 152 , 382 P2d 843 .	1	1964–1964
Tracy & Baker v. City of Astoria green or · 1951 2 sentences 1959See Newton et ux v. Peay et ux, 196 Or 76 , 245 P2d 870 ; Tracy and Baker v. City of Astoria, 193 Or 118 , 237 P2d 954 ; Carnahan Mfg. 1959See Newton et ux v. Peay et ux, 196 Or 76 , 245 P2d 870 ; Tracy and Baker v. City of Astoria, 193 Or 118 , 237 P2d 954 ; Carnahan Mfg.	1	1959–1959
Archambeau v. Edmunson green · 1918 2 sentences 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 . 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 .	1	1954–1954
Neal v. Haight green or · 1949 2 sentences 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 . 1954Neal v. Haight, 187 Or 13, 32 , 206 P2d 1197 ; Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or 350, 354 , 133 P2d 599 ; Timmins v. Hale, 122 Or 24, 32 , 256 P. 770 ; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co., 106 Or 550, 553 , 213 P 151 ; Archambeau v. Edmunson, 87 Or 476, 487 , 171 P 186 .	1	1954–1954
Bibd v. Mayo green or · 1914 2 sentences 1952I do not suggest at this time a re-examination of the doctrine of Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 75 Or 588 , 144 P 574 , 147 P 756 , and the cases which follow it, that this court is authorized under Art VII, § 3 of the constitution, in certain circumstances to re-examine the evidence in a law action that has been tried by a jury and to enter judgment based upon such re-examination. 1952I do not suggest at this time a re-examination of the doctrine of Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 75 Or 588 , 144 P 574 , 147 P 756 , and the cases which follow it, that this court is authorized under Art VII, § 3 of the constitution, in certain circumstances to re-examine the evidence in a law action that has been tried by a jury and to enter judgment based upon such re-examination.	1	1952–1952
Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp. green · 1914 2 sentences 1952I do not suggest at this time a re-examination of the doctrine of Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 75 Or 588 , 144 P 574 , 147 P 756 , and the cases which follow it, that this court is authorized under Art VII, § 3 of the constitution, in certain circumstances to re-examine the evidence in a law action that has been tried by a jury and to enter judgment based upon such re-examination. 1952I do not suggest at this time a re-examination of the doctrine of Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 75 Or 588 , 144 P 574 , 147 P 756 , and the cases which follow it, that this court is authorized under Art VII, § 3 of the constitution, in certain circumstances to re-examine the evidence in a law action that has been tried by a jury and to enter judgment based upon such re-examination.	1	1952–1952
Arthur v. Parish green or · 1935 2 sentences 1951Lyons v. Browning et al., 170 Or. 350, 354 , 133 P. 2d 599 ; Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582 , 47 P. 2d 682 ; Trimmins v. Hale, 122 Or. 24 , 256 P. 770 . 1951Lyons v. Browning et al., 170 Or. 350, 354 , 133 P. 2d 599 ; Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582 , 47 P. 2d 682 ; Trimmins v. Hale, 122 Or. 24 , 256 P. 770 .	1	1951–1951

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 871 (1882–2026) OH 607 (1928–2026) NC 216 (1940–2026) IL 173 (1899–2026) LA 157 (1927–2025) MO 134 (1889–2025) WA 129 (1908–2026) SD 123 (1913–2026) MA 94 (1961–2026) FL 83 (1933–2026) WY 61 (1965–2025) NE 60 (1899–2021) NY 56 (1916–2024) AL 55 (1911–2008) OK 54 (1915–2021) ID 46 (1887–2025) KY 45 (1912–2022) CO 43 (1905–2026) AR 39 (1897–2025) PA 39 (1936–2026) MN 35 (1903–2024) UT 34 (1938–2026) MD 32 (1927–2026) IA 31 (1887–2026) TN 29 (1932–2026) WI 28 (1904–2004) ME 27 (1980–2025) MI 27 (1897–2021) OR 25 (1923–2026) TX 25 (1916–2026) NJ 23 (1952–2025) VA 22 (1934–2024) KS 21 (1894–2017) AZ 19 (1945–2026) WV 17 (1921–2017) SC 16 (1936–2025) MT 16 (1899–2017) DC 16 (1977–2012) MS 14 (1926–2014) GA 13 (1954–2003) NV 13 (1954–2017) VT 10 (1917–1988) NM 9 (1972–2024) IN 9 (1891–2018) ND 8 (1904–2013) DE 6 (1979–2020) PR 6 (1910–1968) CT 5 (1964–1999) AK 5 (1975–2021) RI 3 (1973–2015) HI 3 (1987–2022) NH 2 (1986–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance