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.
100 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2026 89 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 “we ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”). 2026See 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 the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so”). | 61 | 89 |
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. Tildengreen2 sentences2025See State 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 ‘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.’ ” (Quoting State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).)). 2025See State 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 ‘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.’ ” (Quoting State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 589 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).)). | 3 | 10 |
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”). 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”). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Landwatch Lane Countygreen2 sentences2025See ORCP 1 A (explaining that the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “govern 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 department 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). *71 Petitioner’s 2025See ORCP 1 A (explaining that the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “govern 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 department 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). *71 Petitioner’s | 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). *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. 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). *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 | 2 |
Bigelow v. Stategreen2 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 |
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 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”). 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 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”). | 1 | 4 |
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. 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 “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 er 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 “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 er | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallamgreen2 sentences2022If the court finds that the person has not met the burden of proof, the court shall enter an order requiring the person to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.025.” Cite as 317 Or App 535 (2022) 537 to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.”); State v. Hallam, 307 Or App 796, 803 , 479 P3d 545 (2020) (“We ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). 2022If the court finds that the person has not met the burden of proof, the court shall enter an order requiring the person to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.025.” Cite as 317 Or App 535 (2022) 537 to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.”); State v. Hallam, 307 Or App 796, 803 , 479 P3d 545 (2020) (“We ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen1 sentence2021See Scott, 311 Or App at 179 (noting trial court’s belief to that effect before being reminded of the funds posted as security). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dept. of Human Services v. J. P. K.
neutral
2 sentences2025See State v. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 648 (2025) 651 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[.]”). 2025See State v. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 648 (2025) 651 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[.]”). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
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 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). *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. 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). *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 |
State v. Perez-Martinez
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 *203 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 omitted.)); State v. Perez-Martinez, 348 Or App 420, 435 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (rejecting a legal argument that was not supported by any identified legal authority as undeveloped) | 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 conclude 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. Gray
green
1 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 “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 er | 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 cannot 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 ability to review trial court rulings for error and to determine 1 Defendant does argue, relying on Jaimez 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 cannot 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 ability to review trial court rulings for error and to determine 1 Defendant does argue, relying on Jaimez | 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 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 ordinarily 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, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.’ ” Justice and Crum, 265 O 2024Nor does defendant endeavor to suggest that the *24 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 ordinarily 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, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.’ ” Justice and Crum, 265 O | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. N. I. B.
neutral
1 sentence2023Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (noting that “preservation 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 appellant 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 “preservation 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 appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). 2023Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (noting that “preservation 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 appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. M. R. G.-E.
neutral
1 sentence2022If the court finds that the person has not met the burden of proof, the court shall enter an order requiring the person to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.025.” Cite as 317 Or App 535 (2022) 537 to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.”); State v. Hallam, 307 Or App 796, 803 , 479 P3d 545 (2020) (“We ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so.”). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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 (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 (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.