116 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1891–2026 31 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.green2 sentences2026See Ailes, 312 Or at 381-82 (explain- ing that “the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between compet- ing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable”). 2026See Ailes, 312 Or at 381-82 (explaining that “the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable”). | 9 | 51 |
State v. Wiltsegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 10 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (plain error must be “apparent on the record, meaning that the appellate court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable” (internal quota- tion marks omitted)). 2025See State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 10 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (plain error must be “apparent on the record, meaning that the appellate court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable” (internal quota- tion marks omitted)). | 4 | 7 |
Wilkes v. Corneliusgreen2 sentences1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. 1943“The facts constituting the claim need not be stated with the same particularity required in a pleading in an action at law, but may be asserted in general terms; and however informal the claim may be, if it show a substantial liability in favor of the claimant and against the estate, it will be sufficient.” Wilkes v. Cornelius, supra, 21 Or. at p. 351 . | 3 | 4 |
Fearing v. Buchergreen2 sentences2025See Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or 367, 371 , 977 P2d 1163 (1999) (explaining that “ORCP 18 A requires a complaint to contain ‘[a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief’ ”). 2025See Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or 367, 371 , 977 P2d 1163 (1999) (explaining that “ORCP 18 A requires a complaint to contain ‘[a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief’ ”). | 2 | 3 |
Moyer v. Columbia State Bankgreen2 sentences2024See Moyer, 316 Or App at 405 (concluding “that no such further detail nor supporting evidence was required at the pleading stage of these proceedings * * * [and that plaintiffs] are not required under ORCP 18 A to allege evidence”); ORCP 18 (requiring only a “plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief”). 2024See Moyer, 316 Or App at 405 (concluding “that no such further detail nor supporting evidence was required at the pleading stage of these proceedings * * * [and that plaintiffs] are not required under ORCP 18 A to allege evidence”); ORCP 18 (requiring only a “plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief”). | 2 | 2 |
Young v. Hillgreen2 sentences2019Young, 347 Or at 171 (applying the general civil pleading requirement—that one must “allege the factual basis for a 784 Ogle v. Nooth claim for relief, not just the general legal theory on which the party is proceeding”—to a post-conviction petition). 2016“To plead a claim for relief, a party must allege the factual basis for a claim for relief[.]” Young, 347 Or at 171 (so holding regarding ORS 138.525(2), which authorizes dismissal of a petition that “fails to state a claim upon which post-conviction relief may be granted”); see also ORCP 18 (a pleading must contain “[a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief’ and a “demand of the relief which the party claims”). | 2 | 2 |
Tharp v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. 1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Serranogreen2 sentences2019An error is apparent on the face of the record if we do “not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error [are] irrefutable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2017See State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, _ US _, 135 S Ct 2861 , 192 L Ed 2d 899 (2015) (“To qualify as plain error, an asserted error must be (1) one of law; (2) it must be apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gornickgreen2 sentences2018However, as noted above, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike, sua sponte , the "police detective's expression of gratitude for the alleged victim's 'honesty.' " We may review an unpreserved error under ORAP 5.45 if certain conditions are met: "(1) the claimed error is an error of law, (2) the claimed error is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) it appears on the face of the record, i.e. , the reviewing court need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutab 2018However, as noted above, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike, sua sponte , the "police detective's expression of gratitude for the alleged victim's 'honesty.' " We may review an unpreserved error under ORAP 5.45 if certain conditions are met: "(1) the claimed error is an error of law, (2) the claimed error is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) it appears on the face of the record, i.e. , the reviewing court need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutab | 1 | 3 |
Lawrence v. Gwinnett Cnty.green2 sentences2017See State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, _ US _, 135 S Ct 2861 , 192 L Ed 2d 899 (2015) (“To qualify as plain error, an asserted error must be (1) one of law; (2) it must be apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). 2015“If each of those requirements is satisfied, the court proceeds to the second step, where it must decide whether to ‘exercise its discretion to consider or not to consider the error[.]”’ State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, _ US _, 135 S Ct 2861 (2015) (quoting Ailes, 312 Or at 382 ). | 1 | 2 |
Welch v. Bancorp Management Advisors, Inc.green2 sentences2011See ORCP 18 A (pleadings must contain a “plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief’); see also Welch v. Bancorp, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1984) (“The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleading facts at a fairly specific level.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011See ORCP 18 A (pleadings must contain a “plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief’); see also Welch v. Bancorp, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1984) (“The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleading facts at a fairly specific level.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Sander v. Nicholsongreen2 sentences2021See ORCP 18 (requiring that a complaint contain “[a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief”); Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Or App 167, 183 , 473 P3d 1113 , rev den, 367 Or 290 (2020) (“A party who suffers interference with the right to use an easement may bring an equitable claim, seeking an injunction, or, if an injunction is not sufficient or appropriate, seeking to be awarded mone- tary relief in addition or in the alternative.”). 2021See ORCP 18 (requiring that a complaint contain “[a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief”); Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Or App 167, 183 , 473 P3d 1113 , rev den, 367 Or 290 (2020) (“A party who suffers interference with the right to use an easement may bring an equitable claim, seeking an injunction, or, if an injunction is not sufficient or appropriate, seeking to be awarded mone- tary relief in addition or in the alternative.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cathey v. Texasgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014), cert den, _ US _, 135 S Ct 2861 , 192 L Ed 2d 899 (2015) (“To qualify as plain error, an asserted error must be (1) one of law; (2) it must be apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
| SFG Income Fund, Lp v. Maygreen | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 598 (2025) 601 To qualify as “plain error,” a claimed error must be one of “law” that is “ ‘apparent,’ i.e., the point must be obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and the error “must appear ‘on the face of the record,’ i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). 2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 598 (2025) 601 To qualify as “plain error,” a claimed error must be one of “law” that is “ ‘apparent,’ i.e., the point must be obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and the error “must appear ‘on the face of the record,’ i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). | 14 | 1991–2025 |
State v. Reyes-Camarena
green
2 sentences2024We may exercise our discretion to review an unpreserved claim of error as plain error if the asserted error (1) is one of law, (2) is “obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and (3) “appears on the face of the record,” so that we need not “go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 435 , 7 P3d 522 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2024We may exercise our discretion to review an unpreserved claim of error as plain error if the asserted error (1) is one of law, (2) is “obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and (3) “appears on the face of the record,” so that we need not “go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 435 , 7 P3d 522 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 13 | 2003–2024 |
State v. Corkill
green
2 sentences2021We may review an unpreserved claim of error if it is “plain,” that is, if the error is (1) “one of law”; (2) “obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) “appears on the face of the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between com- peting inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 551 , 325 P3d 796 , rev den, 355 Or 751 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2021We may review an unpreserved claim of error if it is “plain,” that is, if the error is (1) “one of law”; (2) “obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) “appears on the face of the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between com- peting inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 551 , 325 P3d 796 , rev den, 355 Or 751 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 12 | 2015–2021 |
Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019ORCP 18 A provides that “[a] pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * [a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repeti- tion.” Under ORCP 18 A, a party must plead facts which, “if proved, will establish the right to recover.” Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or 467, 479 , 668 P2d 1186 (1983). 2019ORCP 18 A provides that “[a] pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * [a] plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repeti- tion.” Under ORCP 18 A, a party must plead facts which, “if proved, will establish the right to recover.” Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or 467, 479 , 668 P2d 1186 (1983). | 4 | 1983–2019 |
State v. Zolotoff
green
2 sentences2019An error is “plain” if “(1) the error is one of law, (2) the error is obvious, not rea- sonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on * * * the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Zolotoff, 275 Or App 384, 397 , 365 P3d 131 (2015). 2019An error is “plain” if “(1) the error is one of law, (2) the error is obvious, not rea- sonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on * * * the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.” State v. Zolotoff, 275 Or App 384, 397 , 365 P3d 131 (2015). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Thackaberry
green
2 sentences2005Under ORAP 5.45(1), we have discretionary authority to consider unpreserved error that is “apparent on the face of the record.” For an error to qualify under that provision, it must satisfy three criteria: “(1) it must be an error of law; (2) it must be apparent, meaning the point of law must be obvious, that is, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, meaning the court need not look beyond the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” State v. Thackaberry, 194 Or App 511, 2005Under ORAP 5.45(1), we have discretionary authority to consider unpreserved error that is “apparent on the face of the record.” For an error to qualify under that provision, it must satisfy three criteria: “(1) it must be an error of law; (2) it must be apparent, meaning the point of law must be obvious, that is, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, meaning the court need not look beyond the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” State v. Thackaberry, 194 Or App 511, | 3 | 2004–2005 |
Díaz v. Barceló
neutral
2 sentences1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. 1922The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Anderson’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ). | 3 | 1917–1948 |
De Golia v. Andersen
green
2 sentences1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. 1939In In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 , 188 P. 164 , 198 P. 236 , Mr. Justice Harris said: “Although the verified claim takes the place of a complaint, the facts constituting the claim need not be stated with the degree of particularity required in a complaint filed in an action at law. | 3 | 1922–1948 |
State v. Esquivel
neutral
2 sentences2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 598 (2025) 601 To qualify as “plain error,” a claimed error must be one of “law” that is “ ‘apparent,’ i.e., the point must be obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and the error “must appear ‘on the face of the record,’ i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). 2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 598 (2025) 601 To qualify as “plain error,” a claimed error must be one of “law” that is “ ‘apparent,’ i.e., the point must be obvi- ous, not reasonably in dispute,” and the error “must appear ‘on the face of the record,’ i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” Ailes v. Portland Meadows Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 , 823 P2d 956 (1991) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry
green
2 sentences1999Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185, 196-97 , 935 P2d 411 (1997). 1999Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185, 196-97 , 935 P2d 411 (1997). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Branch v. Lambert
green
2 sentences1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. 1948The facts constituting the claim may be asserted in general terms and need not be stated with the particularity required in an action at law-: Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348, 350 ( 28 Pac. 135 ); Tharp v. Jackson, 85 Or. 78, 85 ( 165 Pac. 585, 1173 ); In re Andersen’s Estate, 101 Or. 94 ( 198 Pac. 236 , 238); Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 ( 205 Pac. 995, 1002 ).” See also Elliott v. Mosgrove, 162 Or. 507 , 91 P. (2d) 852 , 93 P. (2d) 1070 ; In re Stout’s Estate, 151 Or. 411 , 50 P. (2d) 768 , 101 A. L. | 2 | 1922–1948 |
State v. S. R.-N.
green
2 sentences2024In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it “failed to advise appellant during the proceedings of the nature of the pro- ceedings, what allegations were at issue, and the possible results of [the] proceedings.” “For us to correct an error as plain, the claimed error must be (1) one of law; (2) apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) appear on the face of the record, i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts c 2024In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it “failed to advise appellant during the proceedings of the nature of the pro- ceedings, what allegations were at issue, and the possible results of [the] proceedings.” “For us to correct an error as plain, the claimed error must be (1) one of law; (2) apparent, i.e., the point must be obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) appear on the face of the record, i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts c | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2024Notably, ORS 136.765(2) does not require the state to file notice with the court; rather, the notice must be provided “to the defendant.” See State v. Alexander, 255 Or App 594, 600 , 298 P3d 55 (2013) (differentiating between providing notice to the court and notice to the defendant and emphasizing that ORS 136.765(2) requires the latter). 2024Notably, ORS 136.765(2) does not require the state to file notice with the court; rather, the notice must be provided “to the defendant.” See State v. Alexander, 255 Or App 594, 600 , 298 P3d 55 (2013) (differentiating between providing notice to the court and notice to the defendant and emphasizing that ORS 136.765(2) requires the latter). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Peterson v. Temple
green
1 sentence2023“Claims,” in turn, may be alleged “in the alternative,” ORCP 16 D; each claim must contain a “plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief,” ORCP 18 A; and a plaintiff “may join in a complaint * * * as many claims * * * as the plaintiff has against an opposing party,” ORCP 24 A. See also Peterson, 323 Or at 327 n 3 (noting that the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “abandon[ed] the common law terms ‘cause of action’ and ‘cause of suit’ in favor of the term ‘claim for relief’ * * * or some variant of that term”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rossiter
green
1 sentence2019Cite as 300 Or App 44 (2019) 55 it must (1) be a legal error that is (2) “obvious, not reasonably in dispute[,]” and (3) “appear ‘on the face of the record,’ i.e., the reviewing court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error must be irrefutable.” Ailes, 312 Or at 381 -82 (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hanson
green
2 sentences2016“An error is ‘plain’ ‘if (1) the error is one of law, (2) the error is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Hanson, 280 Or App 196, 201 , 380 P3d 1136 (2016) (quoting State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 551 , 325 P3d 796 , rev den, 355 Or 751 (2014)). 2016“An error is ‘plain’ ‘if (1) the error is one of law, (2) the error is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, so that we need not go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts constituting the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Hanson, 280 Or App 196, 201 , 380 P3d 1136 (2016) (quoting State v. Corkill, 262 Or App 543, 551 , 325 P3d 796 , rev den, 355 Or 751 (2014)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Partain
green
1 sentence2015Here, the error is one of law that is “not reasonably in dispute”; we have repeatedly held that, after a case is remanded for resentencing, the resentencing court has broad authority to, as the Supreme Court has put it, “impose different sentences on any and all counts — even those not affected by the identified error.” Partain, 349 Or at 19 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Ramirez green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Dahlen v. Oregon Transfer Co. neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Davis v. Surcamp green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Hitz green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Mueller v. Benning green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Moore v. Willis green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Nearing v. Weaver green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Solberg v. Johnson green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Employers' Fire Insurance v. Love It Ice Cream Co. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Sanok v. Grimes green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Woolston v. Wells green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Hovis v. City of Burns green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Fredeen v. Stride green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Snow v. TOMPKINS neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Edwards v. Talent Irrigation District green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Mooney v. Johnson Cattle Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Douglas v. Humble Oil & Refining Company green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Keene v. Eldriedge green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| In Re Stout's Estate green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Elliott v. Mosgrove green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
| Case v. McKinnis green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.