policies underlying rule in Oregon

2023Our preservation policy (1) “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”; (2) ensures fairness to an opposing party because it gives the party a chance to respond to the issue presented; and (3) “fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.” Peeples v. Lambert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (citations omitted).

2023Our preservation policy (1) “gives a trial court the chance to consider and rule on a contention, thereby possibly avoiding an error altogether or correcting one already made, which in turn may obviate the need for an appeal”; (2) ensures fairness to an opposing party because it gives the party a chance to respond to the issue presented; and (3) “fosters full development of the record, which aids the trial court in making a decision and the appellate court in reviewing it.” Peeples v. Lambert, 345 Or 209, 219-20 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (citations omitted).

2026We understand the above-cited consideration for exercising discretion when a claim of error is unpreserved—that “the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6—to refer to situations in which the purposes of preservation were not sufficiently served to treat the claim of error as preserved but were served enough to weigh in favor of exercising discretion.

2026We understand the above-cited consideration for exercising discretion when a claim of error is unpreserved—that “the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6—to refer to situations in which the purposes of preservation were not sufficiently served to treat the claim of error as preserved but were served enough to weigh in favor of exercising discretion.

2025Preservation rules are meant to ensure that the trial court and the parties “are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument.” State v. Wideman, 203 Or App 359, 364 , 124 P3d 1271 (2005). “[T]he preser- vation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341 , 211 P3d 262 (2009).

2025Preservation rules are meant to ensure that the trial court and the parties “are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument.” State v. Wideman, 203 Or App 359, 364 , 124 P3d 1271 (2005). “[T]he preser- vation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341 , 211 P3d 262 (2009).

2024“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct or avoid any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster full development of the record.” State v. Lulay, 290 Or App 282, 289 , 414 P3d 903 , rev den, 363 Or 283 (2018).

2024“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct or avoid any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster full development of the record.” State v. Lulay, 290 Or App 282, 289 , 414 P3d 903 , rev den, 363 Or 283 (2018).

2024“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct or avoid any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster full development of the record.” State v. Lulay, 290 Or App 282, 289 , 414 P3d 903 , rev den, 363 Or 283 (2018).

2024“The primary purposes of the preservation rule are to allow the trial court to consider a contention and correct or avoid any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster full development of the record.” State v. Lulay, 290 Or App 282, 289 , 414 P3d 903 , rev den, 363 Or 283 (2018).

2024“The question of whether a party has preserved an argument inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the policies underlying the rule of preservation have been served.” State v. Delaney, 314 Or App 561, 574 , 498 P3d 315 (2021), aff’d, 370 Or 554 , 522 P3d 855 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted).

2024“The question of whether a party has preserved an argument inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the policies underlying the rule of preservation have been served.” State v. Delaney, 314 Or App 561, 574 , 498 P3d 315 (2021), aff’d, 370 Or 554 , 522 P3d 855 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted).

2024Because preservation is a doctrine rooted in practi- cality, “close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Taylor, 323 Or App 422, 426 , 523 P3d 696 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted; omission in Taylor).

2024Because preservation is a doctrine rooted in practi- cality, “close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.” State v. Taylor, 323 Or App 422, 426 , 523 P3d 696 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted; omission in Taylor).

2024“The question of whether a party has preserved an argument inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the policies underlying the rule of preservation have been served.” State v. Delaney, 314 Or App 561, 574 , 498 P3d 315 (2021), aff’d, 370 Or 554 , 522 P3d 855 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted).

2024“The question of whether a party has preserved an argument inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the policies underlying the rule of preservation have been served.” State v. Delaney, 314 Or App 561, 574 , 498 P3d 315 (2021), aff’d, 370 Or 554 , 522 P3d 855 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted).

2026Defendant asserts that the following statements made during the sentencing hearing preserved the issue for appeal: Nonprecedential Memo Op: 348 Or App 453 (2026) 455 “I originally had wanted to make an argument that that was a single incident of a failing to appear.

2024Nonprecedential Memo Op: 331 Or App 819 (2024) 821 Turning to the merits of defendant’s argument, we agree with the state that police did not violate Article I, sec- tion 9, of the Oregon Constitution when they directed him out of the car in connection with the arrest of the driver.

2024See State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341 , 211 P3d 262 (2009) (“Ultimately, the preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * inevitably will turn Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 167 (2024) 171 on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.”).

2020Meisel Co., Inc., 183 Or App 148, 172 , 51 P3d 650 (2002) (given the requirements in ORAP 5.45(4)(a) and the policies underlying the rule, the court declined to review 686 State v. Rockett issues on appeal that were qualitatively different from the issues raised below).

2020Meisel Co., Inc., 183 Or App 148, 172 , 51 P3d 650 (2002) (given the requirements in ORAP 5.45(4)(a) and the policies underlying the rule, the court declined to review 686 State v. Rockett issues on appeal that were qualitatively different from the issues raised below).

2019As to prior trial court decisions, we have explained that "a trial court's decision to give preclusive effect to its prior decision is a prudential decision that takes into consideration the policies underlying the doctrine, which are consistency of judicial decision, putting an end to litigation matters once determined, and preserving the court's prestige, and the rationale that a court should adhere to a previous ruling on an identical matter, whether rightly or wrongly decided, in order to advance the policies enumerated above." Id. at 10-11, 366 P.3d 743 (quoting Poet, 208 Or.

2018See State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) ("Ultimately, the preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls *500 * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served."); State v. Roberts , 291 Or.

2018App. 124 , 130, 418 P.3d 41 (2018) ("The purposes of the preservation requirement are to (1) apprise the trial court of a party's position such that it can consider and rule on it, (2) ensure fairness to the opposing party by avoiding surprise and allowing that party to address all issues raised, and (3) foster full development of the record.").

2018Rather, 'the function of appellate review' is 'to correct errors of the trial court.' " (Quoting Falk v. Amsberry , 290 Or. 839 , 843, 626 P.2d 362 (1981).) ). " '[T] he preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.' " Walker , 350 Or. at 548 , 258 P.3d 1228 (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) ).

2018Rather, 'the function of appellate review' is 'to correct errors of the trial court.' " (Quoting Falk v. Amsberry , 290 Or. 839 , 843, 626 P.2d 362 (1981).) ). " '[T] he preservation rule is a practical one, and close calls * * * inevitably will turn on whether, given the particular record of a case, the court concludes that the policies underlying the rule have been sufficiently served.' " Walker , 350 Or. at 548 , 258 P.3d 1228 (quoting State v. Parkins , 346 Or. 333 , 341, 211 P.3d 262 (2009) ).

2014A party “must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000).

2014A party “must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000).

2006Co., 274 Or 499, 511-12 , 547 P2d 589 (1976), the application of the doctrine is, ultimately, prudential: “The policies underlying the doctrine of the ‘law of the case’ essentially parallel those served by the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata/preclusion, i.e., consistency of *451 judicial decision, putting an end to litigation of matters once determined, and preserving the court’s prestige. [Vestal, 1967 Utah L Rev 1].

2006Co., 274 Or 499, 511-12 , 547 P2d 589 (1976), the application of the doctrine is, ultimately, prudential: “The policies underlying the doctrine of the ‘law of the case’ essentially parallel those served by the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata/preclusion, i.e., consistency of *451 judicial decision, putting an end to litigation of matters once determined, and preserving the court’s prestige. [Vestal, 1967 Utah L Rev 1].

1996In Workman v. Rajneesh Foundation International, 84 Or App 226 , 733 P2d 908 , rev den 303 Or 700 (1987), we concluded that the discovery rule did not apply to two actions for defamatory statements made in a public meeting, in light of the policies underlying the rule.

1996In Workman v. Rajneesh Foundation International, 84 Or App 226 , 733 P2d 908 , rev den 303 Or 700 (1987), we concluded that the discovery rule did not apply to two actions for defamatory statements made in a public meeting, in light of the policies underlying the rule.

1986This decision, however, is in no way a repudiation of Brown’s rationale.” 271 Or at 756 n 4.

1984In Troutman v. Erlandson, 287 Or 187, 205-207 , 598 P2d 1211 (1979), the Supreme Court quoted Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 24, 196-199 (1982): 2 “(1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiffs claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar * * * the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose. “(2) What factual grouping constitutes a ‘transaction’, and what groupings constitute a ‘series

1984In Troutman v. Erlandson, 287 Or 187, 205-207 , 598 P2d 1211 (1979), the Supreme Court quoted Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 24, 196-199 (1982): 2 “(1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiffs claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar * * * the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose. “(2) What factual grouping constitutes a ‘transaction’, and what groupings constitute a ‘series