82 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 71 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. Ardizzonegreen2 sentences2026See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily pro- ceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so). 2026See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily pro- ceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so). | 48 | 72 |
State v. Tildengreen2 sentences2025State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 38 Craft Renovations Inc. v. Harris 597, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not pro- ceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because ‘it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requi- sites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.’ ” (Quoting State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).)). 2025State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 38 Craft Renovations Inc. v. Harris 597, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not pro- ceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because ‘it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requi- sites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.’ ” (Quoting State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).)). | 6 | 10 |
State v. Hammondgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). 2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008) (not addressing the question of plain error where the “defendant does not argue that the matter in dis- pute satisfies the requisites of ‘plain error’ as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion”). 2021See, e.g., State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008) (not addressing the question of plain error where the “defendant does not argue that the matter in dis- pute satisfies the requisites of ‘plain error’ as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Bigelowgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)); Bigelow, 238 Or App at 348 (declining to review for plain error where the defendant did not assert that the argument made on appeal demonstrated an error of law that was “appa 2015However, we ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because “it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012); see also State v. Bigelow, 238 Or App 344, 348 , 242 P3d 719 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 130 (2011), and State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bentleygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Bentley, 301 Or App 347, 354 , 456 P3d 651 (2019) (“[D]efendant did not preserve an argument below that the trial court’s verdict was inconsistent, and, thus, we do not address it.”); see also State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that this court “ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked [it] to do so”). 800 State v. Joe But, even if defendant had preserved an argument that the verdicts are inconsistent, the argument would not be well taken, because the verdicts are 2025See State v. Bentley, 301 Or App 347, 354 , 456 P3d 651 (2019) (“[D]efendant did not preserve an argument below that the trial court’s verdict was inconsistent, and, thus, we do not address it.”); see also State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that this court “ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked [it] to do so”). 800 State v. Joe But, even if defendant had preserved an argument that the verdicts are inconsistent, the argument would not be well taken, because the verdicts are | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Landwatch Lane Countygreen2 sentences2025See ORCP 1 A (explaining that the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “gov- ern procedure and practice in all circuit courts of this state” and “also govern practice and procedure in all civil actions and special proceedings * * * for the small claims depart- ment of circuit courts and for all other courts of this state to the extent they are made applicable to those courts by rule or statute”); see also Johnson v. Landwatch Lane County, 327 Or App 485, 497-98 , 536 P3d 12 (2023) (Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings before the Land Use Board of Appeals). 2025See ORCP 1 A (explaining that the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “gov- ern procedure and practice in all circuit courts of this state” and “also govern practice and procedure in all civil actions and special proceedings * * * for the small claims depart- ment of circuit courts and for all other courts of this state to the extent they are made applicable to those courts by rule or statute”); see also Johnson v. Landwatch Lane County, 327 Or App 485, 497-98 , 536 P3d 12 (2023) (Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings before the Land Use Board of Appeals). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Piercegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). 2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McIntiregreen2 sentences2024See State v. McIntire, 328 Or App 328, 335 , 537 P3d 608 (2023), rev den, 372 Or 26 (2024) (explaining that ordinarily we “will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2024See State v. McIntire, 328 Or App 328, 335 , 537 P3d 608 (2023), rev den, 372 Or 26 (2024) (explaining that ordinarily we “will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
BOLY v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.green2 sentences2015However, we ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because “it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012); see also State v. Bigelow, 238 Or App 344, 348 , 242 P3d 719 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 130 (2011), and State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008). 2012See, e.g., State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008) (not addressing the question of plain error where the “defendant does not argue that the matter in dispute satisfies the requisites of ‘plain error’ as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-83 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), to consider and correct such error”); see also State v. Bigelow, 238 Or App 344, 348 , 242 P3d 719 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 1 | 2 | 2 |
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.green2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008) (not addressing the question of plain error where the “defendant does not argue that the matter in dispute satisfies the requisites of ‘plain error’ as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-83 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), to consider and correct such error”); see also State v. Bigelow, 238 Or App 344, 348 , 242 P3d 719 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 1 2012See, e.g., State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-84 , 180 P3d 137 (2008) (not addressing the question of plain error where the “defendant does not argue that the matter in dispute satisfies the requisites of ‘plain error’ as prescribed in State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion under Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-83 , 823 P2d 956 (1991), to consider and correct such error”); see also State v. Bigelow, 238 Or App 344, 348 , 242 P3d 719 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 1 | 1 | 2 |
State v. M. A. B.green2 sentences2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that “we ordinarily will not proceed to Cite as 340 Or App 6 (2025) 9 the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”).1 As a separate matter, appellant also argues, regard- ing danger to self, that even if the witness’s testimony is taken as “direct evidence unlimited by the state’s limitation on the nature of the testimony”—i.e., even if the testimony was offered for the truth of the matter asserted—the wit- ness’s “express opinion about any danger to the appel 2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that “we ordinarily will not proceed to Cite as 340 Or App 6 (2025) 9 the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”).1 As a separate matter, appellant also argues, regard- ing danger to self, that even if the witness’s testimony is taken as “direct evidence unlimited by the state’s limitation on the nature of the testimony”—i.e., even if the testimony was offered for the truth of the matter asserted—the wit- ness’s “express opinion about any danger to the appel | 1 | 1 |
Home Forward v. Grahamgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that we “ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that we “ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an 2025See State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (“[T]he presence of a common thread between an objection at trial and an argument on appeal does not satisfy the preservation requirement if the two arguments are qualitatively different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that we “ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Soto-Nunez
green
2 sentences2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). 2025See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (explaining that an appellate court will not ordinarily proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked it to do so); see also State v. Pierce, 272 Or App 762, 764 , 358 P3d 324 , rev den, 358 Or 449 (2015) (“[W]e generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750.”) (citing State v. Hammond, 218 Or App 574, 583-87 , 180 P3d 137 (2008); State v. Soto- Nunez, 211 Or App 545, 548-49 , 155 P3d 96 (2007)). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Howard
green
2 sentences2024Cite as 335 Or App 225 (2024) 229 a statute is constitutional presents a question of law, State v. Howard, 325 Or App 696, 701 , 529 P3d 247 , rev den, 371 Or 333 (2023), and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that ORS 426.701 to ORS 426.702 does not function as a criminal proceeding. 2024Cite as 335 Or App 225 (2024) 229 a statute is constitutional presents a question of law, State v. Howard, 325 Or App 696, 701 , 529 P3d 247 , rev den, 371 Or 333 (2023), and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that ORS 426.701 to ORS 426.702 does not function as a criminal proceeding. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
cluster 10839333
neutral
1 sentence2026State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because Cite as 350 Or App 198 (2026) 203 it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, fur- ther, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. Perez- Martinez, 348 Or App 420, 435 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (rejecting a legal argument that was not supported by any identified | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10869549
green
1 sentence2026State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because Cite as 350 Or App 198 (2026) 203 it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, fur- ther, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); State v. Perez- Martinez, 348 Or App 420, 435 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (rejecting a legal argument that was not supported by any identified | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10850319
neutral
1 sentence2026Cite as 349 Or App 48 (2026) 71 Defendant additionally argues that, even if future medical expenses were an appropriate category for restitu- tion in general, the calculation of future medical expenses for W was not objectively verifiable, due to the uncertainty surrounding W’s life expectancy, what conditions he may or may not develop in the future, and the overall cost of medical care.14 We reject defendant’s argument. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Farm
neutral
1 sentence2025Further, as briefly discussed below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 283 (2025) 285 objection to the state’s closing argument, and further con- clude that the trial court’s failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on additional culpable mental states is not plain error because it is not an obvious legal error beyond reasonable dispute. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Almestica
neutral
1 sentence2025Cite as 346 Or App 216 (2025) 221 At the outset, we note that defendant does not dispute that Eide lawfully stopped her because he reason- ably suspected that she had committed a crime. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jaimez v. Rosales
green
2 sentences2024For example, defendant’s first assignment of error provides: “BLM has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over grazing permits for the allotments it manages; the trial court can- not circumvent BLM’s administrative procedure and grant possession of property owned by the BLM to Plaintiff- Respondents when BLM, at its discretion and authority, has granted possession to Defendant-Appellant.”2 As we have explained, “[c]ompliance with ORAP 5.45 is not a matter of mere form; it is crucial to our abil- ity to review trial court rulings for error and to determine 1 Defendant does argue, relying on Ja 2024For example, defendant’s first assignment of error provides: “BLM has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over grazing permits for the allotments it manages; the trial court can- not circumvent BLM’s administrative procedure and grant possession of property owned by the BLM to Plaintiff- Respondents when BLM, at its discretion and authority, has granted possession to Defendant-Appellant.”2 As we have explained, “[c]ompliance with ORAP 5.45 is not a matter of mere form; it is crucial to our abil- ity to review trial court rulings for error and to determine 1 Defendant does argue, relying on Ja | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jacques
neutral
1 sentence2024See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 257 (2024) 259 proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so[.]”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re the Marriage of Justice
green
2 sentences2024Nor does defendant endeavor to suggest that the 24 Thornburgh v. Cyrus trial court’s failure to make express findings in this case constituted “plain error.” State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”).1 Second, some of defendant’s assignments of error are improper under ORAP 5.45(3), which “requires that ‘each assignment of error shall identify precisely the legal, pro- cedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.’ ” 2024Nor does defendant endeavor to suggest that the 24 Thornburgh v. Cyrus trial court’s failure to make express findings in this case constituted “plain error.” State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordi- narily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”).1 Second, some of defendant’s assignments of error are improper under ORAP 5.45(3), which “requires that ‘each assignment of error shall identify precisely the legal, pro- cedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.’ ” | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. N. I. B.
neutral
1 sentence2023Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (noting that “preser- vation fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it”); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 49 (2023) 51 not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appel- lant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Peeples v. Lampert
green
2 sentences2023Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (noting that “preser- vation fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it”); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 49 (2023) 51 not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appel- lant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). 2023Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (noting that “preser- vation fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it”); State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673 , 349 P3d 597 , rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 49 (2023) 51 not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appel- lant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Laune
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 316 Or App 225 (2021) 229 in Scott, here there is no indication that the trial court had concluded that defendant would be unable to pay attorney fees before relying on the funds posted as security to find that ability. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Coverstone
green
2 sentences2020There are three requirements for plain-error review: “(1) the error must be an error of law; (2) it must be ‘apparent,’ in that the ‘legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute’; and 478 State v. Stacey (3) it must appear on the record such that ‘[w]e need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefut- able.’ ” State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). 2020There are three requirements for plain-error review: “(1) the error must be an error of law; (2) it must be ‘apparent,’ in that the ‘legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute’; and 478 State v. Stacey (3) it must appear on the record such that ‘[w]e need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefut- able.’ ” State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Carr
green
2 sentences2012Accordingly, we do not address that issue.”); State v. Carr, 215 Or App 306, 316 , 170 P3d 563 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 109 (2008) (declining to address claim of error apparent on the face of the record where defendant first raised the issue in his reply brief and “even then * * * fail[ed] to address the factors governing the exercise of this court’s discretion to review asserted plain error”). 2012Accordingly, we do not address that issue.”); State v. Carr, 215 Or App 306, 316 , 170 P3d 563 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 109 (2008) (declining to address claim of error apparent on the face of the record where defendant first raised the issue in his reply brief and “even then * * * fail[ed] to address the factors governing the exercise of this court’s discretion to review asserted plain error”). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.