touchstone of the preservation requirement (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

touchstone of the preservation requirement in Oregon

8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2022 3 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Peeples v. Lampertgreen
or · 2008 · cited in 8 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022
2 sentences

2022See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explain- ing that the touchstone of the preservation requirement is procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court).

2022See Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explain- ing that the touchstone of the preservation requirement is procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court).

38
State v. Walkergreen
or · 2011 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2021
2 sentences

2021See State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 552 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011) (“The appropriate focus * * * is [on] whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.”); Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that the touchstone of the preservation requirement is procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court).

2021See State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 552 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011) (“The appropriate focus * * * is [on] whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.”); Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (explaining that the touchstone of the preservation requirement is procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court).

33

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Hitz green
or · 1988
2 sentences

2022The Supreme Court has also distinguished “between ‘raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.’ State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (emphasis in original).” State v. McKinney/Schiffer, 369 Or 325, 332 , 505 P3d 946 (2022).

2022The Supreme Court has also distinguished “between ‘raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.’ State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (emphasis in original).” State v. McKinney/Schiffer, 369 Or 325, 332 , 505 P3d 946 (2022).

12022–2022
Home Forward v. Graham green
or · 2018
1 sentence

2022“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preser- vation rule—‘to allow the trial court to consider a conten- tion and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.’ ” State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (quot- ing State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015)); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (the touchstone of the preservation requirement is proced

12022–2022
State v. Clemente-Perez green
or · 2015
2 sentences

2022“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preser- vation rule—‘to allow the trial court to consider a conten- tion and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.’ ” State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (quot- ing State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015)); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (the touchstone of the preservation requirement is proced

2022“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preser- vation rule—‘to allow the trial court to consider a conten- tion and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.’ ” State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (quot- ing State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015)); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (the touchstone of the preservation requirement is proced

12022–2022
Homes Association of Cedar Hills v. Craig green
orctapp · 2022
1 sentence

2022Cite as 320 Or App 574 (2022) 585 under Article X.

12022–2022
State v. McKinney/Shiffer green
or · 2022
2 sentences

2022The Supreme Court has also distinguished “between ‘raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.’ State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (emphasis in original).” State v. McKinney/Schiffer, 369 Or 325, 332 , 505 P3d 946 (2022).

2022The Supreme Court has also distinguished “between ‘raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument.’ State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988) (emphasis in original).” State v. McKinney/Schiffer, 369 Or 325, 332 , 505 P3d 946 (2022).

12022–2022
State v. Gray green
orctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2022“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preser- vation rule—‘to allow the trial court to consider a conten- tion and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.’ ” State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (quot- ing State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015)); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (the touchstone of the preservation requirement is proced

2022“We evaluate whether an issue is adequately pre- served in light of the underlying purposes of the preser- vation rule—‘to allow the trial court to consider a conten- tion and correct any error, to allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a contention, and to foster a full development of the record.’ ” State v. Gray, 286 Or App 799, 806 , 401 P3d 1241 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 482 (2018) (quot- ing State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 752 , 359 P3d 232 (2015)); see also Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008) (the touchstone of the preservation requirement is proced

12022–2022

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check