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.
127 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2026 44 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. V. L.green2 sentences2026L., 341 Or App at 778, in which we determined that “the purpose of the requirement is to provide a mentally ill person notice of the reasons that they are alleged to be mentally ill, and that purpose is met through incorporating by reference an attachment contain- ing those reasons.” Regarding the second assignment of error related to the legal sufficiency of evidence of danger to others, we “view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by per- missible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was le 2026L., 341 Or App at 778, in which we determined that “the purpose of the requirement is to provide a mentally ill person notice of the reasons that they are alleged to be mentally ill, and that purpose is met through incorporating by reference an attachment contain- ing those reasons.” Regarding the second assignment of error related to the legal sufficiency of evidence of danger to others, we “view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by per- missible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was le | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barrgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244-45 , 545 P3d 772 , rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024) (imposing “per diem” fees in judgment with- out first announcing that term at sentencing was error and required resentencing). 2025See State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242, 244-45 , 545 P3d 772 , rev den, 372 Or 720 (2024) (imposing “per diem” fees in judgment with- out first announcing that term at sentencing was error and required resentencing). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explaining that the trial court lacked author- ity to impose a condition prohibiting contact with the victim in addition to term of imprisonment). 2025See, e.g., State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explaining that the trial court lacked author- ity to impose a condition prohibiting contact with the victim in addition to term of imprisonment). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2023First, she argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “five out of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test was consistent with being unsafe to drive, driving erratically, exhibiting mood swings, having an odor of alcohol and watery eyes, and was inconsistent with being sober.” Second, defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “the FSTs were scientifically validated.” The majority focuses on the second assignment of error. 325 Or App at 137 . 2023First, she argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “five out of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test was consistent with being unsafe to drive, driving erratically, exhibiting mood swings, having an odor of alcohol and watery eyes, and was inconsistent with being sober.” Second, defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “the FSTs were scientifically validated.” The majority focuses on the second assignment of error. 325 Or App at 137. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wyattgreen2 sentences2023Under ORS 813.010(6)(c), a trial court “shall impose” a minimum fine of $2,000 for a person’s third or subsequent DUII conviction “if the person is not sentenced to a term 1 “Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). 2023Under ORS 813.010(6)(c), a trial court “shall impose” a minimum fine of $2,000 for a person’s third or subsequent DUII conviction “if the person is not sentenced to a term 1 “Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
Pollack v. Mapesgreen1 sentence2025See 343 Or App at 475-76. | 1 | 1 |
Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportationgreen2 sentences2024See Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696 , 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193 , adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472 , 68 P3d 259 (2003) (“[I]t is not this court’s function to speculate as to what a party’s argument might be” or “to make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.”). 2024See Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696 , 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193 , adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472 , 68 P3d 259 (2003) (“[I]t is not this court’s function to speculate as to what a party’s argument might be” or “to make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.”). | 1 | 1 |
Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportationgreen2 sentences2024See Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696 , 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193 , adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472 , 68 P3d 259 (2003) (“[I]t is not this court’s function to speculate as to what a party’s argument might be” or “to make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.”). 2024See Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696 , 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193 , adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472 , 68 P3d 259 (2003) (“[I]t is not this court’s function to speculate as to what a party’s argument might be” or “to make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Coy v. Iowagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chapman v. Californiared | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Manninggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Eggersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. D. J. M.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bacogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beck v. City of Tillamookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moore v. Coos Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Troutdale v. Palace Constr. Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Colbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Portergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cumming v. Nippinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Deckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mota v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estremado v. Jackson Countygreen | 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. J. K.
neutral
2 sentences2026K., 337 Or App 629, 630 , 564 P3d 940 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026K., 337 Or App 629, 630 , 564 P3d 940 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ledesma
neutral
2 sentences2025Turning to the second assignment of error, as noted earlier, the state concedes that the trial court erred by Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 273 (2025) 277 including probation-like conditions in the sentence on which it had imposed incarceration rather than probation. 2025Turning to the second assignment of error, as noted earlier, the state concedes that the trial court erred by Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 273 (2025) 277 including probation-like conditions in the sentence on which it had imposed incarceration rather than probation. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes County
green
2 sentences2025In responding to the Buchanans’ arguments, LUBA characterized their argument as taking a position that a Cite as 344 Or App 383 (2025) 415 local government must accept a neighboring farmer’s state- ment that they intended to farm the land for the purposes of a making profit. 2025In responding to the Buchanans’ arguments, LUBA characterized their argument as taking a position that a Cite as 344 Or App 383 (2025) 415 local government must accept a neighboring farmer’s state- ment that they intended to farm the land for the purposes of a making profit. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Muniz
green
2 sentences2025Assuming without deciding that defendant’s chal- lenges to the prosecutor’s statements identified in his second and third assignments of error are preserved, we agree that some of the prosecutor’s comments pointed to by defendant on appeal were improper, see State v. Muniz, 332 Or App 56, 60 , 548 P3d 172 (2024) (describing improper appeal to juror’s emotions), but that the error in permitting the com- ments was ultimately harmless in the context of this case. 2025Assuming without deciding that defendant’s chal- lenges to the prosecutor’s statements identified in his second and third assignments of error are preserved, we agree that some of the prosecutor’s comments pointed to by defendant on appeal were improper, see State v. Muniz, 332 Or App 56, 60 , 548 P3d 172 (2024) (describing improper appeal to juror’s emotions), but that the error in permitting the com- ments was ultimately harmless in the context of this case. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Church v. Gladden
green
2 sentences2024In the second assignment of error, he contends that the court improperly denied his motion under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308 , 417 P2d 993 (1966), and failed to appoint substitute counsel. 2024In the second assignment of error, he contends that the court improperly denied his motion under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308 , 417 P2d 993 (1966), and failed to appoint substitute counsel. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Agustin
green
2 sentences2010We reject defendant's second assignment of error without discussion, see State v. Cobb, 224 Or.App. 594 , 198 P.3d 978 (2008), rev. den., 346 Or. 364 , 213 P.3d 578 (2009), and write only to address his first assignment of error. 2010We reject defendant’s second assignment of error without discussion, see State v. Cobb, 224 Or App 594 , 198 P3d 978 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 364 (2009), and write only to address his first assignment of error. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Cobb
green
2 sentences2010We reject defendant’s second assignment of error without discussion, see State v. Cobb, 224 Or App 594 , 198 P3d 978 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 364 (2009), and write only to address his first assignment of error. 2010We reject defendant’s second assignment of error without discussion, see State v. Cobb, 224 Or App 594 , 198 P3d 978 (2008), rev den, 346 Or 364 (2009), and write only to address his first assignment of error. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Jones v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2006ORCP 47 D; Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408 , 939 P2d 608 (1997). 2006ORCP 47 D; Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408 , 939 P2d 608 (1997). | 2 | 2000–2006 |
Scott v. Goord
green
2 sentences2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or.App. 134 , 880 P.2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or. 479 , 940 P.2d 518 , cert. den., 522 U.S. 1004 , 118 S.Ct. 578 , 139 L.Ed.2d 416 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. 2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or App 134 , 880 P2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or 479 , cert den, 522 US 1004 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Mitchell
neutral
2 sentences2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or App 134 , 880 P2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or 479 , cert den, 522 US 1004 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. 2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or App 134 , 880 P2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or 479 , cert den, 522 US 1004 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or.App. 134 , 880 P.2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or. 479 , 940 P.2d 518 , cert. den., 522 U.S. 1004 , 118 S.Ct. 578 , 139 L.Ed.2d 416 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. 2004Dept. v. Mitchell, 130 Or App 134 , 880 P2d 958 (1994), aff'd by an equally divided court, 325 Or 479 , cert den, 522 US 1004 (1997) (analyzing constitutionality of compelled blood draw of juvenile offender under ORS 419.507(11) (1991)), and State ex rel Juv. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
O'Neill v. O'Neill
green
2 sentences1978We review de novo, State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59 , 545 P2d 97 (1976). 1978We review de novo, State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59 , 545 P2d 97 (1976). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Woods
green
2 sentences2026State v. Snider, 346 Or App 534, 540-41 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (declining to overrule State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555 , 920 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996), as plainly wrong as to whether the state must prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s incapacity); State v. Woods, 317 Or App 506, 519 , 505 P3d 432 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022) (also so declining). 2026State v. Snider, 346 Or App 534, 540-41 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (declining to overrule State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555 , 920 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996), as plainly wrong as to whether the state must prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s incapacity); State v. Woods, 317 Or App 506, 519 , 505 P3d 432 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022) (also so declining). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Phelps
green
2 sentences2026State v. Snider, 346 Or App 534, 540-41 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (declining to overrule State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555 , 920 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996), as plainly wrong as to whether the state must prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s incapacity); State v. Woods, 317 Or App 506, 519 , 505 P3d 432 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022) (also so declining). 2026State v. Snider, 346 Or App 534, 540-41 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (declining to overrule State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555 , 920 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996), as plainly wrong as to whether the state must prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s incapacity); State v. Woods, 317 Or App 506, 519 , 505 P3d 432 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022) (also so declining). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Snider
green
1 sentence2026State v. Snider, 346 Or App 534, 540-41 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (declining to overrule State v. Phelps, 141 Or App 555 , 920 P2d 1098 , rev den, 324 Or 306 (1996), as plainly wrong as to whether the state must prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s incapacity); State v. Woods, 317 Or App 506, 519 , 505 P3d 432 , rev den, 370 Or 198 (2022) (also so declining). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ferreira
neutral
1 sentence2026In his third assignment of error, defendant argues that Phelps, Woods, and Snider, leave open the question of whether the state must prove that defendant was criminally Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 408 (2026) 411 negligent as to L’s capacity to consent. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10850331
neutral
1 sentence2026On the second assignment of error, we have determined that EQC’s findings are sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record such that the Cite as 349 Or App 17 (2026) 31 evidence “would permit a reasonable person to make that finding,” ORS 183.482(8)(c), and its conclusions derived from those findings were adequately explained with substantial reasoning. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Jae Lee v. United States
green
2 sentences2025We also note the post-conviction court’s determi- nations regarding the evidence that petitioner asserts that trial counsel would have discovered had trial counsel con- ducted an adequate investigation regarding the legal issues set forth in her first four assignments of error, namely: • Regarding the first assignment—that trial counsel was ineffective and inadequate in failing to obtain and translate particular emails—petitioner did not show how the information contained in the emails “would have changed the outcome or affected her decision to enter a plea”; • Regarding the second assignment 2025We also note the post-conviction court’s determi- nations regarding the evidence that petitioner asserts that trial counsel would have discovered had trial counsel con- ducted an adequate investigation regarding the legal issues set forth in her first four assignments of error, namely: • Regarding the first assignment—that trial counsel was ineffective and inadequate in failing to obtain and translate particular emails—petitioner did not show how the information contained in the emails “would have changed the outcome or affected her decision to enter a plea”; • Regarding the second assignment | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kim v. Brown
neutral
1 sentence2025We also note the post-conviction court’s determi- nations regarding the evidence that petitioner asserts that trial counsel would have discovered had trial counsel con- ducted an adequate investigation regarding the legal issues set forth in her first four assignments of error, namely: • Regarding the first assignment—that trial counsel was ineffective and inadequate in failing to obtain and translate particular emails—petitioner did not show how the information contained in the emails “would have changed the outcome or affected her decision to enter a plea”; • Regarding the second assignment | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21 , 430 P3d 1067 (2018); State 1 Youth also raises a second assignment of error. 2024State v. Jackson, 364 Or 1, 21 , 430 P3d 1067 (2018); State 1 Youth also raises a second assignment of error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rogge v. Lester Realty, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 544 (2024) 547 the ruling, and we must reject the second assignment of error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Derby v. Columbia County
green
1 sentence2024In the second assignment of error, defendant con- tends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a 1 For that conduct—as the jury in this case was made aware—William was adjudged to be guilty except for insanity, because, as a court found, at the time he attacked his mother, he “lack[ed] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Cite as 336 Or App 379 (2024) 381 directed verdict as to plaintiffs’ claim that defendant was negligent in failing to train jail staff regarding mental ill- ness. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Rochefort neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Aman green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Shank v. Board of Nursing green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Bradley green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Bradley green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kopf v. SAIF neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Insurance Companies green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Hull green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Ogle v. Nooth green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Young green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In re the Domestic Partnership of Himler green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Teagues green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Chittenden green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Crow neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Zoske neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.