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.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ethyl Corporation v. Jalbertgreen2 sentences2005Specifically, this court instructed that, to be entitled to a new trial under ORS 19.420(3), “[t]he appellant (1) must show due diligence in attempting to find and supply a record for the purposes of appeal; and (2) must make ‘at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. at 379 (quoting Ethyl Corp. v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651, 655 , 529 P2d 368 (1974)). 2005Specifically, this court instructed that, to be entitled to a new trial under ORS 19.420(3), “[t]he appellant (1) must show due diligence in attempting to find and supply a record for the purposes of appeal; and (2) must make ‘at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.’ ” Id. at 379 (quoting Ethyl Corp. v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651, 655 , 529 P2d 368 (1974)). | 1 | 8 |
Smith v. Custom Micro, Inc.green2 sentences2014See Smith v. Custom Micro, Inc., 311 Or 375, 378-79 , 811 P2d 1371 (1991) (in discussing the predecessor statute to ORS 19.420(3), the Supreme Court explained that the requirement of a prima facie showing of error is one of the considerations that should “guide [an appellate court’s] discretion under the statute in choosing whether to put the parties and the judicial system to the time and expense of another trial without a finding of reversible error”). 2014See Smith v. Custom Micro, Inc., 311 Or 375, 378-79 , 811 P2d 1371 (1991) (in discussing the predecessor statute to ORS 19.420(3), the Supreme Court explained that the requirement of a prima facie showing of error is one of the considerations that should “guide [an appellate court’s] discretion under the statute in choosing whether to put the parties and the judicial system to the time and expense of another trial without a finding of reversible error”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bonnergreen2 sentences1992See State v. Bonner, 77 Or App 572 , 714 P2d 245 (1986). 1992See State v. Bonner, 77 Or App 572 , 714 P2d 245 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Colegreen2 sentences1921If the petition is insufficient, the writ should be disallowed in the first instance: Holmes v. Cole, 51 Or. 483, 488 ( 94 Pac. 964 ). 3. 1921If the petition is insufficient, the writ should be disallowed in the first instance: Holmes v. Cole, 51 Or. 483, 488 ( 94 Pac. 964 ). 3. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co.
green
2 sentences1999Appellant acknowledges that, in general, an appellant who invokes ORS 19.420(3) must make the two-part showing described in Ethyl Corp. v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651 , 529 P2d 368 (1974): “[T]he appellant * * * must show that he has made every reasonable effort to secure a substitute for the missing portion of the record and, in addition, make ‘at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.’ ” 270 Or at 655 , (quoting Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co., 182 Or 611, 616-17 , 189 P2d 592 (1948)). 1999Appellant acknowledges that, in general, an appellant who invokes ORS 19.420(3) must make the two-part showing described in Ethyl Corp. v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651 , 529 P2d 368 (1974): “[T]he appellant * * * must show that he has made every reasonable effort to secure a substitute for the missing portion of the record and, in addition, make ‘at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.’ ” 270 Or at 655 , (quoting Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co., 182 Or 611, 616-17 , 189 P2d 592 (1948)). | 3 | 1991–2002 |
State v. Obalo
green
1 sentence2019We may reverse and remand for a new trial under that provision if the appellant (1) "show[s] that they have made every reasonable effort to secure a substitute for the missing portion of the record and (2) *** make[s] a prima facie showing of error, of unfairness at trial, or of a miscarriage of justice." Obelo , 179 Or. App. at 687 , 41 P.3d 458 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Acremant
green
2 sentences2009To justify an exercise of our discretion to order a new hearing under ORS 19.420(3), an appellant must make “at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 339 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (citation omitted). 2009To justify an exercise of our discretion to order a new hearing under ORS 19.420(3), an appellant must make “at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 339 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Acremant v. Oregon
green
1 sentence2009To justify an exercise of our discretion to order a new hearing under ORS 19.420(3), an appellant must make “at least a prima facie showing of error, or unfairness in the trial, or that there had been a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Acremant, 338 Or 302, 339 , 108 P3d 1139 , cert den, 546 US 864 (2005) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bingman v. Clark
green
1 sentence1999As the court said in Bingman v. Clark, 178 Iowa 1129 , 159 N. W. 172 : “ ‘To say the least it would seem unfair to this defendant, who has obtained a judgment against this plaintiff, to impose upon him the burden and expense of a second trial, until it is shown either that the first trial was in some way unfair, or some erroneous rulings made at the trial * * * The burden rests upon the party attacking the judgment to show something of equitable cognizance which shows him entitled to relief from the judgment. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Fisher v. Union County
neutral
2 sentences1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). 1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Raper v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). 1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Kinney v. City of Astoria
green
2 sentences1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). 1921A petition for a writ of review should state facts with sufficient certainty and detail to make a prima facie showing of error, and, when this is not done, but only conclusions of law and some meager facts are alleged, the petition is insufficient: Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223 ( 72 Pac. 797 ); Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203 ( 99 Pac. 889 ); Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or. 186 ( 113 Pac. 21 ). | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.