record to find error in Oregon

2014ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”); Resources Northwest, Inc. v. Crothers, 153 Or App 24, 26-27 , 955 P2d 763 (1998) (explaining that “we have declined to reach assigned errors where noncompliance with the rules has required this court to search the record to review relevant motions, rulings, and arguments”). 7 Affirmed.

2014ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”); Resources Northwest, Inc. v. Crothers, 153 Or App 24, 26-27 , 955 P2d 763 (1998) (explaining that “we have declined to reach assigned errors where noncompliance with the rules has required this court to search the record to review relevant motions, rulings, and arguments”). 7 Affirmed.

2004In Thomas Creek Lumber v. Board of Forestry, 188 Or App 10, 30 , 69 P3d 1238 (2003), we explained: “ORAP 5.45(1) provides that ‘[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the lower court.’ Moreover, ORAP 5.45(4)(c) provides that ‘[t]he court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.’ Those preservation requirements apply not only to appeals of trial court judgments but also to petitions for judicial review

2004In Thomas Creek Lumber v. Board of Forestry, 188 Or App 10, 30 , 69 P3d 1238 (2003), we explained: “ORAP 5.45(1) provides that ‘[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the lower court.’ Moreover, ORAP 5.45(4)(c) provides that ‘[t]he court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.’ Those preservation requirements apply not only to appeals of trial court judgments but also to petitions for judicial review

2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 350 Or App 343 (2026) 345 being evicted from a long term residence is disruptive and destabilizing, however, appellant has not demonstrated that she was deprived of notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issues, especially in light of the fact that the initial pro- ceedings were dismissed when respondent did not appear, after the case was refiled the court provided the parties and opportunity to informally resolve the case prior to the trial, and appellant was permitted to testify at trial, cross- examine respondent, review and object to the introduction of eviden

2019As the party opposing summary judgment, plaintiff “has the bur- den of producing evidence on any issue raised in the motion as to which [she] would have the burden of persuasion at trial.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 , 325 P3d 707 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019As the party opposing summary judgment, plaintiff “has the bur- den of producing evidence on any issue raised in the motion as to which [she] would have the burden of persuasion at trial.” Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 324 , 325 P3d 707 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2017Co., 228 Or App 454, 475 , 209 P3d 357 (2009), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 350 Or 336 , 258 P3d 1199 , adh’d to on recons, 350 Or 521 , 256 P3d 100 (2011), cert den, 565 US 1177 (2012) (declining to reach claims of error because noncompliance with ORAP 5.45 left the court unable to determine what rulings were being challenged and whether the bases for the challenges were preserved below); Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 185 Or App 444, 464 , 61 P3d 257 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 479 (2003) (“If a party does not identify a specific legal, procedural, factual, or other ruli

2016Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App 354, 359 , 374 P3d 978 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 281 Or App 322 , 383 P3d 409 (2016); see ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”).

2016Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App 354, 359 , 374 P3d 978 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 281 Or App 322 , 383 P3d 409 (2016); see ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”).

2016Moreover, we have no obligation “to take it upon ourselves to review the record to find that matters assigned as error are preserved and may instead decline consideration of those assignments.” Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 162 Or App 538, 544 , 986 P2d 646 , rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999); see also Strawn v. Farmers Ins.

2016Moreover, we have no obligation “to take it upon ourselves to review the record to find that matters assigned as error are preserved and may instead decline consideration of those assignments.” Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 162 Or App 538, 544 , 986 P2d 646 , rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999); see also Strawn v. Farmers Ins.

2016Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App 354, 359 , 374 P3d 978 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 281 Or App 322 , 383 P3d 409 (2016); see ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”).

2016Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App 354, 359 , 374 P3d 978 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 281 Or App 322 , 383 P3d 409 (2016); see ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”).

2013See ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”); Frakes v. Nay, 254 Or App 236, 251 , 295 P3d 94 (2012) (declining to search a “voluminous trial court record to determine whether and when the asserted error occurred”).

2013See ORAP 5.45(4)(c) (“The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.”); Frakes v. Nay, 254 Or App 236, 251 , 295 P3d 94 (2012) (declining to search a “voluminous trial court record to determine whether and when the asserted error occurred”).

2004In Thomas Creek Lumber v. Board of Forestry, 188 Or App 10, 30 , 69 P3d 1238 (2003), we explained: “ORAP 5.45(1) provides that ‘[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the lower court.’ Moreover, ORAP 5.45(4)(c) provides that ‘[t]he court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.’ Those preservation requirements apply not only to appeals of trial court judgments but also to petitions for judicial review

2004In Thomas Creek Lumber v. Board of Forestry, 188 Or App 10, 30 , 69 P3d 1238 (2003), we explained: “ORAP 5.45(1) provides that ‘[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the lower court.’ Moreover, ORAP 5.45(4)(c) provides that ‘[t]he court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved.’ Those preservation requirements apply not only to appeals of trial court judgments but also to petitions for judicial review

2003Compton Co., 185 Or App at 388 .