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.
121 Oregon opinions name it 4 courts 2008–2026 72 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peeples v. Lampertgreen2 sentences2026Therefore, as to each of appellant’s assignments of error, the probate court was not presented with “the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or cor- recting one already made[.]” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). 2026Therefore, as to each of appellant’s assignments of error, the probate court was not presented with “the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or cor- recting one already made[.]” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). | 45 | 111 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2024We begin with the issue of preservation. “[T]he rule of preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2024We begin with the issue of preservation. “[T]he rule of preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 13 |
State v. Skotlandgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Skotland, 372 Or 319, 326 , 549 P3d 534 (2024); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that “preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 745 (2025) 749 one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”). 2025See, e.g., State v. Skotland, 372 Or 319, 326 , 549 P3d 534 (2024); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that “preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 745 (2025) 749 one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”). | 3 | 5 |
Shields v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2021See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (discussing policy considerations underlying preservation requirement, namely “giv[ing] a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention,” “permitting the opposing party to respond to a contention and by otherwise not taking the opposing party by surprise,” and “foster[ing] full development of the record”); see also id. at 219 (“ ‘A party owes the trial court the obligation of a sound, clear and articulate motion, objection or exception, so as to permit the trial judge a chance to consider the legal contention or to c 2021See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-21 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (discussing policy considerations underlying preservation requirement, namely “giv[ing] a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention,” “permitting the opposing party to respond to a contention and by otherwise not taking the opposing party by surprise,” and “foster[ing] full development of the record”); see also id. at 219 (“ ‘A party owes the trial court the obligation of a sound, clear and articulate motion, objection or exception, so as to permit the trial judge a chance to consider the legal contention or to c | 2 | 4 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2024See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 *95 (2008) (explaining that preservation “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention” and permits “the opposing party to respond to a contention”); see also State v. Harris, 322 Or App 483, 489 , 520 P3d 897 (2022) (holding that the defendant’s generic confrontation objection preserved his argument for appeal because the objection emphasized the witness’s absence and the resulting inability to cross-examine that witness, thereby triggering the state’s burden to show unavailability). 2024See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 *95 (2008) (explaining that preservation “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention” and permits “the opposing party to respond to a contention”); see also State v. Harris, 322 Or App 483, 489 , 520 P3d 897 (2022) (holding that the defendant’s generic confrontation objection preserved his argument for appeal because the objection emphasized the witness’s absence and the resulting inability to cross-examine that witness, thereby triggering the state’s burden to show unavailability). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wyattgreen2 sentences2009Most recently, in O’Hara v. Board of Parole, 346 Or 41, 47 , 203 P3d 213 (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized that “[rlules of preservation in court proceedings serve several purposes, including encouraging the parties to sharpen the issues and to present them fully and fairly to the trial court in the first instance, so that the trial court has an opportunity to make an informed ruling and develop an adequate record and the opposing party and the reviewing court are not taken by surprise later.” The Supreme Court in O’Hara, 346 Or at 47 , repeated with approval its admonition in Peeples v. La 2009Most recently, in O’Hara v. Board of Parole, 346 Or 41, 47 , 203 P3d 213 (2009), the Supreme Court emphasized that “[rlules of preservation in court proceedings serve several purposes, including encouraging the parties to sharpen the issues and to present them fully and fairly to the trial court in the first instance, so that the trial court has an opportunity to make an informed ruling and develop an adequate record and the opposing party and the reviewing court are not taken by surprise later.” The Supreme Court in O’Hara, 346 Or at 47 , repeated with approval its admonition in Peeples v. La | 1 | 9 |
John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc.green2 sentences2025To demonstrate preservation, an appellant must show that “the argument it makes on appeal is one that was presented to the trial court, giving that court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc., 287 Or App 466, 472-73 , 402 P3d 719 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025To demonstrate preservation, an appellant must show that “the argument it makes on appeal is one that was presented to the trial court, giving that court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc., 287 Or App 466, 472-73 , 402 P3d 719 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 3 |
O'HARA v. Board of Parolegreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., O’Hara v. Board of Parole, 346 Or 41, 47 , 203 P3d 213 (2009) (“Rules of preservation in court proceedings serve * * * [to] encourag[e] the parties to sharpen the issues and to present them fully and fairly to the trial court * * * so that the trial court has an opportunity to make an informed ruling and develop an adequate record and the opposing party and the reviewing court are not taken by surprise later.”); Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an err 2010See, e.g., O’Hara v. Board of Parole, 346 Or 41, 47 , 203 P3d 213 (2009) (“Rules of preservation in court proceedings serve * * * [to] encourag[e] the parties to sharpen the issues and to present them fully and fairly to the trial court * * * so that the trial court has an opportunity to make an informed ruling and develop an adequate record and the opposing party and the reviewing court are not taken by surprise later.”); Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an err | 1 | 2 |
State v. Quebradogreen2 sentences2025Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008); see also State v. Quebrado, 372 Or 301 , 310, 549 P3d 524 (2024) (“At its core, preservation asks whether the parties, and the trial court, had a fair opportunity to meet the merits of the argument later advanced on appeal and thereby avoid the error at the outset or to correct the error upon its occurrence.”). 2025Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008); see also State v. Quebrado, 372 Or 301 , 310, 549 P3d 524 (2024) (“At its core, preservation asks whether the parties, and the trial court, had a fair opportunity to meet the merits of the argument later advanced on appeal and thereby avoid the error at the outset or to correct the error upon its occurrence.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2024“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples, 345 Or at 219 ; see also State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 356 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (emphasizing that the reasons for the rule requiring preservation in the trial court are to “allow the adversary to present its position and to permit the court to understand and correct any error”). 2024“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples, 345 Or at 219 ; see also State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 356 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (emphasizing that the reasons for the rule requiring preservation in the trial court are to “allow the adversary to present its position and to permit the court to understand and correct any error”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hitzgreen2 sentences2024See John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc., 287 Or App 466, 472 , 402 P3d 719 (2017) (“To demonstrate preservation, the appellant must show that the argument it makes on appeal is one that was presented to the trial court, giving that court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (“We have previously drawn attention to the distinctions between raising an i 2024See John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc., 287 Or App 466, 472 , 402 P3d 719 (2017) (“To demonstrate preservation, the appellant must show that the argument it makes on appeal is one that was presented to the trial court, giving that court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (“We have previously drawn attention to the distinctions between raising an i | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Fhueregreen2 sentences2024As we have previously stated: “Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008); see also Thompson v. Fhuere, 372 Or 81, 102-03 , 545 P3d 1233 (2024) (to same effect). 2 The Court of Appeals’ disposition meant that neither party had an incentive to raise preservation in this court. 2024As we have previously stated: “Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008); see also Thompson v. Fhuere, 372 Or 81, 102-03 , 545 P3d 1233 (2024) (to same effect). 2 The Court of Appeals’ disposition meant that neither party had an incentive to raise preservation in this court. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Affeldgreen2 sentences2009See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.”); State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128 , 764 P2d 220 (1988) (“The purpose of this rule [requiring an offer of proof] is to assure that appellate courts are able to determine whether it was error to exclude the evidence and whether any error was likely to have affected the result of the case.”); ORAP 5.45(1) (claimed error must b 2009See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (“Preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.”); State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128 , 764 P2d 220 (1988) (“The purpose of this rule [requiring an offer of proof] is to assure that appellate courts are able to determine whether it was error to exclude the evidence and whether any error was likely to have affected the result of the case.”); ORAP 5.45(1) (claimed error must b | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. O'BRIEN
green
2 sentences2020As explained by the Supreme Court in State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011), there are important policies that support the preservation rule: The rule “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal,” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008), and, “the rule ensures fairness to opposing parties, by requiring that ‘the positions of the parties are presented clearly to the initial tribunal’ so that ‘parties are not tak 2020As explained by the Supreme Court in State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011), there are important policies that support the preservation rule: The rule “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal,” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008), and, “the rule ensures fairness to opposing parties, by requiring that ‘the positions of the parties are presented clearly to the initial tribunal’ so that ‘parties are not tak | 11 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Mickow
green
2 sentences2025In reaching that conclusion, we note that the trial court expressly considered the issue, finding that defendant was “in a position to pay attorneys’ fees.” Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the state notes that when the trial court asked defendant, “What kind of work do you do when you’re working for pay?” defendant answered, “I was a site safety coordinator on commercial construction projects.” The state argues that that shows “defendant had a work history such that he may be able to pay the fees.” The state also points to defense counsel’s statement that defendant “does not have a lot 2025In reaching that conclusion, we note that the trial court expressly considered the issue, finding that defendant was “in a position to pay attorneys’ fees.” Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the state notes that when the trial court asked defendant, “What kind of work do you do when you’re working for pay?” defendant answered, “I was a site safety coordinator on commercial construction projects.” The state argues that that shows “defendant had a work history such that he may be able to pay the fees.” The state also points to defense counsel’s statement that defendant “does not have a lot | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Weston v. Dallman
neutral
2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Skotland, 372 Or 319, 326 , 549 P3d 534 (2024); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that “preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 745 (2025) 749 one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”). 2025See, e.g., State v. Skotland, 372 Or 319, 326 , 549 P3d 534 (2024); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that “preservation gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 745 (2025) 749 one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Amaya
green
2 sentences2023In considering whether an argument is preserved, our Supreme Court has cautioned that “problems * * * may arise if the preservation onion is sliced too thinly.” State v. Amaya, 336 Or 616, 629 , 89 P3d 1163 (2004). 2023In considering whether an argument is preserved, our Supreme Court has cautioned that “problems * * * may arise if the preservation onion is sliced too thinly.” State v. Amaya, 336 Or 616, 629 , 89 P3d 1163 (2004). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Parkins
green
2 sentences2020“Ultimately, the preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341 , 211 P3d 262 (2009). 2020“Ultimately, the preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341 , 211 P3d 262 (2009). | 2 | 2018–2020 |
State v. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2025See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (policies underlying preservation requirement include providing “a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention,” ensuring fair- ness to an opposing party, and fostering “full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.”); ORAP 5.45(1) (“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court * * *.”); State v. Montgomery, 256 Or App 222, 228 , 300 P3d 221 , rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013) (c 2025See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (policies underlying preservation requirement include providing “a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention,” ensuring fair- ness to an opposing party, and fostering “full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.”); ORAP 5.45(1) (“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court * * *.”); State v. Montgomery, 256 Or App 222, 228 , 300 P3d 221 , rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013) (c | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Whitmore
green
1 sentence2018App. 664 , 666, 307 P.3d 552 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), and to give the trial court "the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or *295 correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal," Peeples v. Lampert , 345 Or. 209 , 219, 191 P.3d 637 (2008). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Van Nguyen
green
2 sentences2017The objection should be specific enough to “permit [the trial court] to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Nguyen, 222 Or App 55, 65 , 191 P3d 767 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 690 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2017The objection should be specific enough to “permit [the trial court] to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Nguyen, 222 Or App 55, 65 , 191 P3d 767 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 690 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. SANG VAN NGUYEN
green
1 sentence2017The objection should be specific enough to “permit [the trial court] to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Nguyen, 222 Or App 55, 65 , 191 P3d 767 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 690 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Blasingame
green
2 sentences2015The purpose of preservation is to give “a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). “[W]hen determining if an issue has been adequately preserved for review, the appropriate focus ‘is whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.’” State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014) (c 2015The purpose of preservation is to give “a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal.” Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). “[W]hen determining if an issue has been adequately preserved for review, the appropriate focus ‘is whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.’” State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014) (c | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Wirfs
green
1 sentence2012“The purpose of preservation is to ensure fairness to an opposing party, by giving the trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, and allowing the opposing party to respond.” Wirfs, 250 Or App at 273 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Stevens
green
2 sentences2009In making the determination that an issue has been preserved, “an appellate court must view the facts in light of the purposes of fairness and efficiency that underlie the requirement.” State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998). 2009In making the determination that an issue has been preserved, “an appellate court must view the facts in light of the purposes of fairness and efficiency that underlie the requirement.” State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.