8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2022 2 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. Reevesgreen2 sentences2021As we have said before, an offer of proof must have “sufficient particularity to allow the trial court to rule on the argument and correct any error.” State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 301 , 280 P3d 994 , rev den, 352 Or 565 (2012) (emphasis added). 2021As we have said before, an offer of proof must have “sufficient particularity to allow the trial court to rule on the argument and correct any error.” State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 301 , 280 P3d 994 , rev den, 352 Or 565 (2012) (emphasis added). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or 2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clemente-Perezgreen2 sentences2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or 2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or | 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. Wyatt
green
2 sentences2022State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). 2022State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000). | 2 | 2012–2022 |
State v. Moen
green
2 sentences2018Turning to the merits of defendant's second assignment of error, the hearsay exception at issue, OEC 803(4), provides an exception for out-of-court "[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or *279 present symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." Historically, Oregon courts have admitted hearsay statements "made to a person for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment in view of the declarant's strong motivat 2018Turning to the merits of defendant's second assignment of error, the hearsay exception at issue, OEC 803(4), provides an exception for out-of-court "[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or *279 present symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment." Historically, Oregon courts have admitted hearsay statements "made to a person for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment in view of the declarant's strong motivat | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gadda v. Gadda
green
2 sentences2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or 2018See Clemente-Perez , 357 Or. at 753 , 359 P.3d 232 ("Although defendant may not have presented his argument with perfect clarity, we conclude that he provided sufficient information to enable the prosecutor to respond and for the trial court to consider the argument and correct any error."); State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 550, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ("The fact that the level of detail or thoroughness with which a party articulates a position may leave something to be desired does not mean that it was insufficient to serve the rule of preservation's pragmatic purposes."); Gadda v. Gadda , 341 Or | 1 | 2018–2018 |