avoid error in Oregon

14 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 5 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Walkergreen or · 2011 · cited in 9 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2015–2023 2 sentences 2023However, when the court’s decision to limit argument is based on a legal determination, as it was in this case, we review the court’s decision for legal error.” State v. Sanchez- Cacatzun, 304 Or App 650, 660 , 468 P3d 964 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021) (citations omitted).4 “In arguing that the state has met its burden to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor may attempt to persuade the jury that it should 3 Although defendant did not specifically name the case, the trial court and the state had notice that recent case law provided the boundaries regarding 2023However, when the court’s decision to limit argument is based on a legal determination, as it was in this case, we review the court’s decision for legal error.” State v. Sanchez- Cacatzun, 304 Or App 650, 660 , 468 P3d 964 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021) (citations omitted).4 “In arguing that the state has met its burden to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor may attempt to persuade the jury that it should 3 Although defendant did not specifically name the case, the trial court and the state had notice that recent case law provided the boundaries regarding	3	9
State v. Rogersgreen or · 2000 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282, 310-12 , 4 P3d 1261 (2000) (“If there is only one legally correct out- come, ‘discretion’ is an inapplicable concept. 2023See State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282, 310-12 , 4 P3d 1261 (2000) (“If there is only one legally correct out- come, ‘discretion’ is an inapplicable concept.	2	2
State v. Parnellgreen orccklamath · 2016 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Based on those principles, and the totality of the circumstances, we concluded that the “defendant’s motion in limine raised OEC 403 sufficiently ‘to enable opposing parties to meet [the] objection and the trial court to avoid error.’” Id. at 670 (quoting Walker, 350 Or at 550 ); Accord State v. Parnell, 278 Or App 260, 266 , 373 P3d 1252 (2016) (“ [I]f a party makes an argument in a written motion, he or she need not necessarily reiterate that precise argument at the hearing in order for the issue to be preserved.”). 2017Based on those principles, and the totality of the circumstances, we concluded that the “defendant’s motion in limine raised OEC 403 sufficiently ‘to enable opposing parties to meet [the] objection and the trial court to avoid error.’” Id. at 670 (quoting Walker, 350 Or at 550 ); Accord State v. Parnell, 278 Or App 260, 266 , 373 P3d 1252 (2016) (“ [I]f a party makes an argument in a written motion, he or she need not necessarily reiterate that precise argument at the hearing in order for the issue to be preserved.”).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kirkland green orctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2025The point * * * is whether a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an objection and the trial court to avoid error.”). 292 State v. McLane three prerequisites for an award of restitution: (1) criminal activities, (2) [economic] damages, and (3) a causal rela- tionship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 424 , 342 P3d 163 (2015). 2025The point * * * is whether a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an objection and the trial court to avoid error.”). 292 State v. McLane three prerequisites for an award of restitution: (1) criminal activities, (2) [economic] damages, and (3) a causal rela- tionship between the two.” State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 424 , 342 P3d 163 (2015).	2	2025–2025
State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun green orctapp · 2020 2 sentences 2023However, when the court’s decision to limit argument is based on a legal determination, as it was in this case, we review the court’s decision for legal error.” State v. Sanchez- Cacatzun, 304 Or App 650, 660 , 468 P3d 964 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021) (citations omitted).4 “In arguing that the state has met its burden to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor may attempt to persuade the jury that it should 3 Although defendant did not specifically name the case, the trial court and the state had notice that recent case law provided the boundaries regarding 2023However, when the court’s decision to limit argument is based on a legal determination, as it was in this case, we review the court’s decision for legal error.” State v. Sanchez- Cacatzun, 304 Or App 650, 660 , 468 P3d 964 (2020), rev den, 367 Or 559 (2021) (citations omitted).4 “In arguing that the state has met its burden to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor may attempt to persuade the jury that it should 3 Although defendant did not specifically name the case, the trial court and the state had notice that recent case law provided the boundaries regarding	2	2023–2023
Maxfield v. Nooth green orccmalheur · 2016 2 sentences 2018Further, "a party ordinarily need not reiterate orally the arguments that it has made in writing, and also need not renew those arguments after the court has made its ruling. * * * Rather, the question is whether a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an objection and the trial court to avoid error." Maxfield v. Nooth , 278 Or. 2018In short, Cedartech asserted its contractual entitlement to fees and provided "sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an objection and the trial court to avoid error." Maxfield , 278 Or.	2	2017–2018
State v. Smith neutral orctapp · 2024 1 sentence 2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 754 (2024) 757 insufficient to establish reasonableness.	1	2024–2024
State v. Stevens green or · 1998 2 sentences 2017As we said in State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015), “[although there is some degree of liberality to the preservation requirement, the requirement is not meant to be ‘a cursory search for some common thread, however remote, between an issue on appeal and a position that was advanced at trial.’” (Quoting State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998).) The policies of fairness and efficiency underlying the preservation requirement—that is, to ensure that “a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an ob 2017As we said in State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015), “[although there is some degree of liberality to the preservation requirement, the requirement is not meant to be ‘a cursory search for some common thread, however remote, between an issue on appeal and a position that was advanced at trial.’” (Quoting State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998).) The policies of fairness and efficiency underlying the preservation requirement—that is, to ensure that “a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an ob	1	2017–2017
State v. Blasingame green orctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2017As we said in State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015), “[although there is some degree of liberality to the preservation requirement, the requirement is not meant to be ‘a cursory search for some common thread, however remote, between an issue on appeal and a position that was advanced at trial.’” (Quoting State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998).) The policies of fairness and efficiency underlying the preservation requirement—that is, to ensure that “a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an ob 2017As we said in State v. Blasingame, 267 Or App 686, 691 , 341 P3d 182 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015), “[although there is some degree of liberality to the preservation requirement, the requirement is not meant to be ‘a cursory search for some common thread, however remote, between an issue on appeal and a position that was advanced at trial.’” (Quoting State v. Stevens, 328 Or 116, 122 , 970 P2d 215 (1998).) The policies of fairness and efficiency underlying the preservation requirement—that is, to ensure that “a party provides sufficient information to enable opposing parties to meet an ob	1	2017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.106 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.405 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OR 14 (2015–2025) IN 6 (1998–2020) CA 4 (2006–2020) WA 3 (2003–2003) OH 3 (1981–2012) AL 2 (1911–1923) TX 2 (1951–2016) IA 2 (2017–2024) OK 2 (1971–1973) PA 2 (1982–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check