terms rule in Oregon

2021When a trial court rules that other-acts evidence is relevant and admissible under either OEC 404(3) or OEC 404(4), the trial court “must conduct balancing under OEC 403, according to the terms of that rule, to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substan- tially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.”3 State v. Mazziotti, 361 Or 370, 374 , 393 P3d 235 (2017). 2 OEC 404(4) provides: “In criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by: “(a) ORS 40.180, 40.185, 40.190, 40.195, 40.200, 4

2021When a trial court rules that other-acts evidence is relevant and admissible under either OEC 404(3) or OEC 404(4), the trial court “must conduct balancing under OEC 403, according to the terms of that rule, to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substan- tially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.”3 State v. Mazziotti, 361 Or 370, 374 , 393 P3d 235 (2017). 2 OEC 404(4) provides: “In criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by: “(a) ORS 40.180, 40.185, 40.190, 40.195, 40.200, 4

2010The terms of the rule, however, gave the trial court discretion to allow the filing "after the time limited by the procedural rules, or by an order enlarge such time." Id.

2010The terms of the rule, however, gave the trial court discretion to allow the filing “after the time limited by the procedural rules, or by an order enlarge such time.” Id.

2022Cite as 370 Or 34 (2022) 39 The trial court ordered the production of all records requested by the six RFPs.

2020“An appeal becomes moot when a decision ‘will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obli- gations of a party.’ ” City of Cave Junction v. State of Oregon, 289 Or App 216, 222-23 , 410 P3d 306 (2017) (quoting State v. Walraven, 282 Or App 649, 654 , 385 P3d 1178 (2016)).

2020“An appeal becomes moot when a decision ‘will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obli- gations of a party.’ ” City of Cave Junction v. State of Oregon, 289 Or App 216, 222-23 , 410 P3d 306 (2017) (quoting State v. Walraven, 282 Or App 649, 654 , 385 P3d 1178 (2016)).

2020Again, the terms of the rule did not include “expression as an element or ‘proscribed means’ of causing targeted harm.”3 Id.

2020“An appeal becomes moot when a decision ‘will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obli- gations of a party.’ ” City of Cave Junction v. State of Oregon, 289 Or App 216, 222-23 , 410 P3d 306 (2017) (quoting State v. Walraven, 282 Or App 649, 654 , 385 P3d 1178 (2016)).

2020“An appeal becomes moot when a decision ‘will no longer have a practical effect on the rights or obli- gations of a party.’ ” City of Cave Junction v. State of Oregon, 289 Or App 216, 222-23 , 410 P3d 306 (2017) (quoting State v. Walraven, 282 Or App 649, 654 , 385 P3d 1178 (2016)).

2019App. at 277 , 441 P.3d 647 (noting that section 5(3) provides a statutory right to relief "and the terms of that relief mirror the terms of the waiver"). 2.

2011Sivers Co., 343 Or 339, 353-54 , 169 P3d 1255 (2007) (plaintiff in contract action may recover damages that are within contemplation of parties at the time of contract formation and are the natural consequence of a breach). 6 Defendant argues that all convictions, including the convictions for burglary, should be reversed because he contested his intent to commit any of his father’s crimes, including burglary, and maintained instead that he was “merely obeying his domineering and violent father rather than trying to aid him.” The problem with that argument, however, is that it overlooks the te

2011Sivers Co., 343 Or 339, 353-54 , 169 P3d 1255 (2007) (plaintiff in contract action may recover damages that are within contemplation of parties at the time of contract formation and are the natural consequence of a breach). 6 Defendant argues that all convictions, including the convictions for burglary, should be reversed because he contested his intent to commit any of his father’s crimes, including burglary, and maintained instead that he was “merely obeying his domineering and violent father rather than trying to aid him.” The problem with that argument, however, is that it overlooks the te

1998The majority opinion dismisses the relevance of Lakeside because: "Unlike the instruction here, only one implication could be found in the terms of that instruction." 154 Or.App. at 602 n. 6, 963 P.2d at 76 n. 6.

1998The majority opinion dismisses the relevance of Lakeside because: "Unlike the instruction here, only one implication could be found in the terms of that instruction." 154 Or.App. at 602 n. 6, 963 P.2d at 76 n. 6.

1998That argument is not framed explicitly in the terms of our analysis of the stalking statutes in State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571 , 934 P2d 1128 , rev allowed 325 Or 367 (1997), and Delgado v. Souders, 146 Or App 580 , 934 P2d 1132 , rev allowed 326 Or 43 (1997), which were decided after the issuance of the SPO in this case.

1998That argument is not framed explicitly in the terms of our analysis of the anti-stalking statutes in State v. Rangel, 146 Or.

1998That argument is not framed explicitly in the terms of our analysis of the stalking statutes in State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571 , 934 P2d 1128 , rev allowed 325 Or 367 (1997), and Delgado v. Souders, 146 Or App 580 , 934 P2d 1132 , rev allowed 326 Or 43 (1997), which were decided after the issuance of the SPO in this case.

1998That argument is not framed explicitly in the terms of our analysis of the stalking statutes in State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571 , 934 P2d 1128 , rev allowed 325 Or 367 (1997), and Delgado v. Souders, 146 Or App 580 , 934 P2d 1132 , rev allowed 326 Or 43 (1997), which were decided after the issuance of the SPO in this case.

1998That argument is not framed explicitly in the terms of our analysis of the stalking statutes in State v. Rangel, 146 Or App 571 , 934 P2d 1128 , rev allowed 325 Or 367 (1997), and Delgado v. Souders, 146 Or App 580 , 934 P2d 1132 , rev allowed 326 Or 43 (1997), which were decided after the issuance of the SPO in this case.

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1992The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on different grounds. 1 In a subsequent decision, Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 91 Or App 547 , 756 P2d 1257 (1988), the Court of Appeals also decided the attorney fee issues in the case. 2 Although subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of plaintiffs’ claims was an issue in Van De Hey v. U.S. National Bank, 90 Or App 258 , 752 P2d 848 (1988) (Van De Hey I), it is no longer an issue here because, as will be discussed infra, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by claim preclusion. 3 See Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 139 , 795 P2d 531 (19

1977It is your duty to determine whether or not there was such flight or concealment and if you find there was, then it is your duty also to determine what the defendant’s purpose or motive was which prompted him to act in that manner.” Defendant excepted to the instruction, but the terms of the exception were not particularly clear. 1 In this court defendant argues, in part at least, that no flight instruction ought to have been given, relying on State v. McCormick, 28 Or App 821 , 561 P2d 665 , *[706] Sup Ct review allowed (1977).

1977It is your duty to determine whether or not there was such flight or concealment and if you find there was, then it is your duty also to determine what the defendant’s purpose or motive was which prompted him to act in that manner.” Defendant excepted to the instruction, but the terms of the exception were not particularly clear. 1 In this court defendant argues, in part at least, that no flight instruction ought to have been given, relying on State v. McCormick, 28 Or App 821 , 561 P2d 665 , *[706] Sup Ct review allowed (1977).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1975Among other cases, see Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 211 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962); Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or 125, 130-31 , 485 P2d 1085 (1971); Graham v. Walsh, 259 Or 423 , 487 P2d 76 (1971); Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or 441, 443-45 , 525 P2d 105 (1974); and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or 309, 311-12 , 527 P2d 398 (1974).

1955Chance v. Graham, 76 Or 199, 207 ; Barger v. Barger, 30 Or 268 , 47 P 702 ; 54 Am Jur, Trusts, § 204 p 159.

1955Chance v. Graham, 76 Or 199, 207 ; Barger v. Barger, 30 Or 268 , 47 P 702 ; 54 Am Jur, Trusts, § 204 p 159.

1955Chance v. Graham, 76 Or 199, 207 ; Barger v. Barger, 30 Or 268 , 47 P 702 ; 54 Am Jur, Trusts, § 204 p 159.

1943Under proper instructions, the sufficiency of the search and inquiry is one for the jury, upon consideration of the evidence, and the jury’s determination that same was sufficient will not be disturbed by this court on appeal, unless, from an examination and consideration of all the evidence in the record, we can say, as a matter of law, that the minds of all reasonable men should concur in holding same insufficient under the rule announced.” See, to the same effect, Modern Woodmen of America v. White, 70 Colo. 207 , 199 P. 965 , 17 A. L.

1943Under proper instructions, the sufficiency of the search and inquiry is one for the jury, upon consideration of the evidence, and the jury’s determination that same was sufficient will not be disturbed by this court on appeal, unless, from an examination and consideration of all the evidence in the record, we can say, as a matter of law, that the minds of all reasonable men should concur in holding same insufficient under the rule announced.” See, to the same effect, Modern Woodmen of America v. White, 70 Colo. 207 , 199 P. 965 , 17 A. L.

1923Having declared upon such a claim, it is vitally essential to their cause that they prove it as stated and they are confined to the terms of the claim which they assert: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348 ( 28 Pac. 135 ).

1923Having declared upon such a claim, it is vitally essential to their cause that they prove it as stated and they are confined to the terms of the claim which they assert: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348 ( 28 Pac. 135 ).