20 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 11 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 Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SPgreen2 sentences2025Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 , aff’d, 346 Or 592 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has Cite as 345 Or App 724 (2025) 729 determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encour- aged commission of the error in question * * *.”). 2025Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 , aff’d, 346 Or 592 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has Cite as 345 Or App 724 (2025) 729 determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encour- aged commission of the error in question * * *.”). | 4 | 10 |
State v. Serranogreen2 sentences2024Dept. v. S.P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (stating that whether a party “encouraged commis- sion of the error in question or made a strategic choice not to object” are relevant to whether this court will “exercise its discretion” to reverse an asserted plain error); see, e.g., State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 188 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, 576 US 1037 (2015) (assuming that, by giving certain jury instructions, the trial court committed plain error, but declining to reverse because the defendant had made “an explicit decision to endorse” the instructions).10 Here, the gravity of th 2024Dept. v. S.P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (stating that whether a party “encouraged commis- sion of the error in question or made a strategic choice not to object” are relevant to whether this court will “exercise its discretion” to reverse an asserted plain error); see, e.g., State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 188 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, 576 US 1037 (2015) (assuming that, by giving certain jury instructions, the trial court committed plain error, but declining to reverse because the defendant had made “an explicit decision to endorse” the instructions).10 Here, the gravity of th | 3 | 3 |
State v. Digestigreen2 sentences2016See also Digesti, 267 Or App at 525 (trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that it had to find that the defendant had knowingly subjected the victim to forcible compulsion was harmless error where the defendant had prevented the victim from leaving a bathroom and touched her, over her objections and despite her efforts to leave). 2015See State v. Digesti, 267 Or App 516, 525 , 340 P3d 762 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 111 (2015) (determining that trial court plainly erred under Nelson and Gray, but declining to exercise Ailes discretion because the error was harmless). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hortongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 266 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion to correct plain error where there was only “an extremely low likelihood” that the verdict would have been different). 2024See State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 266 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion to correct plain error where there was only “an extremely low likelihood” that the verdict would have been different). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guerrerogreen2 sentences2024See State v. Guerrero, 216 Or App 173, 174 , 171 P3d 392 (2007) (agreeing with and accepting state’s conces- sion that trial court erred in failing to instruct jury that it must find that the defendant’s license was suspended for one of the reasons listed in ORS 811.182(4)) Assuming that the trial court plainly erred, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the asserted plain error, as we conclude that, had the court instructed Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 422 (2024) 427 the jury as defendant now contends was necessary, there is little likelihood that the verdict would have been 2024See State v. Guerrero, 216 Or App 173, 174 , 171 P3d 392 (2007) (agreeing with and accepting state’s conces- sion that trial court erred in failing to instruct jury that it must find that the defendant’s license was suspended for one of the reasons listed in ORS 811.182(4)) Assuming that the trial court plainly erred, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the asserted plain error, as we conclude that, had the court instructed Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 422 (2024) 427 the jury as defendant now contends was necessary, there is little likelihood that the verdict would have been | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen1 sentence2016The asserted plain error was harmless.” Id. at 12. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024For both of those reasons, we conclude that the “ends of justice” do not require us to overlook “the strong policies requiring preservation,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 , and we therefore decline to exercise our discretion to correct the asserted unpreserved error as to Counts 3 through 6. 2024For both of those reasons, we conclude that the “ends of justice” do not require us to overlook “the strong policies requiring preservation,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 , and we therefore decline to exercise our discretion to correct the asserted unpreserved error as to Counts 3 through 6. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences2025The invited error doctrine provides that “if an appellant was actively instrumental in bringing about the error, then the appellant cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The invited error doctrine provides that “if an appellant was actively instrumental in bringing about the error, then the appellant cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. HAUSERMAN
green
2 sentences2025The invited error doctrine provides that “if an appellant was actively instrumental in bringing about the error, then the appellant cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The invited error doctrine provides that “if an appellant was actively instrumental in bringing about the error, then the appellant cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” State v. Ferguson, 201 Or App 261, 269 , 119 P3d 794 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 34 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Short
neutral
2 sentences2025Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 , aff’d, 346 Or 592 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has Cite as 345 Or App 724 (2025) 729 determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encour- aged commission of the error in question * * *.”). 2025Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 , aff’d, 346 Or 592 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has Cite as 345 Or App 724 (2025) 729 determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encour- aged commission of the error in question * * *.”). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Fults
green
2 sentences2009State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007). 2009State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 173 P3d 822 (2007). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Ordaz
neutral
1 sentence2024See State v. Guerrero, 216 Or App 173, 174 , 171 P3d 392 (2007) (agreeing with and accepting state’s conces- sion that trial court erred in failing to instruct jury that it must find that the defendant’s license was suspended for one of the reasons listed in ORS 811.182(4)) Assuming that the trial court plainly erred, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the asserted plain error, as we conclude that, had the court instructed Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 422 (2024) 427 the jury as defendant now contends was necessary, there is little likelihood that the verdict would have been | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Berndt
green
2 sentences2016Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encouraged commission of the error in question * * *.") State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 , 386 P3d 196 (2016) (declining to review alleged “plain errors”: “Defendant thus invited the errors of which he now complains, and we therefore do not consider them.”). 2016Dept. v. S. P., 346 Or 592, 606 , 215 P3d 847 (2009) (“This court has determined that it will not exercise its discretion to review an asserted plain error if the party seeking review encouraged commission of the error in question * * *.") State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 , 386 P3d 196 (2016) (declining to review alleged “plain errors”: “Defendant thus invited the errors of which he now complains, and we therefore do not consider them.”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Corkill
green
1 sentence2016Rather, any ‘plain error’ must relate to the trial court having not taken affirmative steps to intervene in the parties’ litigation.” 262 Or App at 551 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.