16 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2026 6 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. Longgreen2 sentences2021See Pachmayr, 344 Or at 490-95 (holding that trial court’s amendment of an indict- ment to change “deadly weapon” to “dangerous weapon” in an assault charge—a change requested by the state to correct a “scrivener’s error”—was one of form that did not change the essential nature of the charge, prejudice the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him to pro- tect against double jeopardy, or deprive the defendant of a defense);5 State v. Long, 320 Or 361, 369 , 885 P2d 696 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1087 (1995) (holding that trial court did not err in amending an indictment to fix a typ 2021See Pachmayr, 344 Or at 490-95 (holding that trial court’s amendment of an indict- ment to change “deadly weapon” to “dangerous weapon” in an assault charge—a change requested by the state to correct a “scrivener’s error”—was one of form that did not change the essential nature of the charge, prejudice the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him to pro- tect against double jeopardy, or deprive the defendant of a defense);5 State v. Long, 320 Or 361, 369 , 885 P2d 696 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1087 (1995) (holding that trial court did not err in amending an indictment to fix a typ | 1 | 3 |
State v. Pachmayrgreen1 sentence2021See Pachmayr, 344 Or at 490-95 (holding that trial court’s amendment of an indict- ment to change “deadly weapon” to “dangerous weapon” in an assault charge—a change requested by the state to correct a “scrivener’s error”—was one of form that did not change the essential nature of the charge, prejudice the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him to pro- tect against double jeopardy, or deprive the defendant of a defense);5 State v. Long, 320 Or 361, 369 , 885 P2d 696 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1087 (1995) (holding that trial court did not err in amending an indictment to fix a typ | 1 | 1 |
Tattoo v. Barrett Business Servicegreen2 sentences2007See Tattoo v. Barrett Business Service, 118 Or App 348, 351 , 847 P2d 872 (1993) (“[E]mployers are bound by the express language of their denials.”). 2007See Tattoo v. Barrett Business Service, 118 Or App 348, 351 , 847 P2d 872 (1993) (“[E]mployers are bound by the express language of their denials.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mattison, Inc. v. W. F. Larson, Inc.green1 sentence1990F. Larson, Inc., 529 SW2d 271, 273 (Tex Civ App 1975); accord American Fruit Purveyors v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, *526 118 Ga App 840, 165 SE2d 879 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
American Fruit Purveyors, Inc. v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.green1 sentence1990F. Larson, Inc., 529 SW2d 271, 273 (Tex Civ App 1975); accord American Fruit Purveyors v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, *526 118 Ga App 840, 165 SE2d 879 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Straube/McEvilly v. Myers
neutral
2 sentences2026See ORS 250.085(8) (explaining that this court may modify and certify to the Secretary of State or refer to the Attorney General for modification); Straube/ McEvilly v. Myers, 340 Or 395 , 133 P3d 897 (2006) (exercis- ing discretion to correct a typographical error and certify a corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State). 2026See ORS 250.085(8) (explaining that this court may modify and certify to the Secretary of State or refer to the Attorney General for modification); Straube/ McEvilly v. Myers, 340 Or 395 , 133 P3d 897 (2006) (exercis- ing discretion to correct a typographical error and certify a corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
McNeil v. Geico Casualty Co., Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2022Cite as 319 Or App 458 (2022) 461 the insurance contract and to fix a typographical error in the statutory claim. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cryo-Tech, Inc. v. JKC Bend, LLC
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 313 Or App 413 (2021) 427 during the term of this Lease or any renewal or extension hereof.” In landlord’s view, the opening sentence is simply a reiter- ation of landlord’s obligation under the lease for the initial construction of the Landlord Improvements and does not impose a duty of repair. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Salisbury v. Dept. of Rev.
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 24 OTR 497 (2021) 501 absent extraordinary circumstances. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Narvaez v. United States
green
1 sentence2021See Pachmayr, 344 Or at 490-95 (holding that trial court’s amendment of an indict- ment to change “deadly weapon” to “dangerous weapon” in an assault charge—a change requested by the state to correct a “scrivener’s error”—was one of form that did not change the essential nature of the charge, prejudice the defendant’s right to notice of the charges against him to pro- tect against double jeopardy, or deprive the defendant of a defense);5 State v. Long, 320 Or 361, 369 , 885 P2d 696 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1087 (1995) (holding that trial court did not err in amending an indictment to fix a typ | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Peterson v. Dept. of Rev.
green
1 sentence2019(The document refers to the June 26 Statement.) Cite as 23 OTR 554 (2019) 563 driving a borrowed vehicle. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Davenport
green
1 sentence2015The state notes that in our opinion we described the officer’s weight as 255 pounds, when in fact the record indicates that the officer weighed 155 pounds. 272 Or App at 728 n 2. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mark v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2010However, Defendant established that this was a typographical error which should have read ORS 215.236 . ( See Def's Ex's A at 9, D at 1, F) The decision elsewhere refers to ORS 215.236 ; ORS 215.235 does not now exist, nor did it exist in 2005; and the Polk County Community Development Director acknowledged that the citation to ORS 215.235 in the decision was a typographical error. 3 The court in Mark stated that the error was correctable "as a clerical error." Mark , 14 OTR at 475 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Allen v. Maass
neutral
1 sentence1994Our use of the September 1 date in State v. Minniear, 124 Or App 197, 198 , 859 P2d 1205 (1993), appears to have been a typographical error. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Minniear
neutral
1 sentence1994Our use of the September 1 date in State v. Minniear, 124 Or App 197, 198 , 859 P2d 1205 (1993), appears to have been a typographical error. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Gay v. Wall
green
1 sentence1991In light of the analysis which follows, the omission is of no moment, because the analysis is equally applicable to Riley, as well as to all the other BCDSS social workers 5 Although a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal only tests whether the claim has been adequately stated in the complaint, the rule also provides that if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment." Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d at 177 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ransom v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1990In criminal cases involving the sale, possession, distribution, or manufacture of controlled substances or driving under the influence of intoxicants, the people of the State of Oregon, represented by the State of Oregon, are the victim. “(7) ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to prove the charge against the criminal defendant or establish the proper sentence for the criminal defendant.” We note that, due to a typographical error, the Caption of the ballot title approved by this court in Ransom v. Roberts, 309 Or 654, 665 , 791 P2d489 (1990), used the word “provisions.” We | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.