7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lennongreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Lennon, 348 Or 148 , 152 n 2, 229 P3d 589 (2010) (so noting). 2011See, e.g., State v. Lennon, 348 Or 148 , 152 n 2, 229 P3d 589 (2010) (so noting). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991). 2025Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991). | 3 | 2010–2025 |
State v. Chitwood
green
2 sentences2026The dissenting opin- ion noted that our “cases have left unresolved the question whether a party’s strategic choice not to object is relevant to the existence of plain error, or relevant only to the discretion- ary choice to correct such an error, or both.” Id. at 334 n 2 (Garrett, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). 2025In arguing otherwise, the state contends that defendant may have made a strategic choice not to object to Williams’s testimony.1 See State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 1 As we observe in another case issued this same day, “our recent case law has left unresolved the question whether a party’s strategic choice not to object is relevant to the existence of plain error, or relevant only to the discretionary choice to correct such an error, or both.” State v. Vaninetti, __ Or App __, __, __ P3d __ (2025) (slip op at 8) (citing State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 334 n 2, 518 P3d 903 Cite as 346 Or App | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Wiltse
green
1 sentence2026Finally, we addressed the “strategic choice” issue again in a different context in Wiltse, 373 Or 1 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10839828
green
1 sentence2026And in Wiltse, we determined that Cite as 375 Or 132 (2026) 145 whether the defendant had made a strategic choice not to object to a jury instruction was a factor to be considered at step two of the analysis in determining whether a conviction should be reversed based on that plain error. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Fults
green
2 sentences2025In arguing otherwise, the state contends that defendant may have made a strategic choice not to object to Williams’s testimony.1 See State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 1 As we observe in another case issued this same day, “our recent case law has left unresolved the question whether a party’s strategic choice not to object is relevant to the existence of plain error, or relevant only to the discretionary choice to correct such an error, or both.” State v. Vaninetti, __ Or App __, __, __ P3d __ (2025) (slip op at 8) (citing State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 334 n 2, 518 P3d 903 Cite as 346 Or App 2025In arguing otherwise, the state contends that defendant may have made a strategic choice not to object to Williams’s testimony.1 See State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 1 As we observe in another case issued this same day, “our recent case law has left unresolved the question whether a party’s strategic choice not to object is relevant to the existence of plain error, or relevant only to the discretionary choice to correct such an error, or both.” State v. Vaninetti, __ Or App __, __, __ P3d __ (2025) (slip op at 8) (citing State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 334 n 2, 518 P3d 903 Cite as 346 Or App | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Arena-Easton
neutral
1 sentence2025In arguing otherwise, the state contends that defendant may have made a strategic choice not to object to Williams’s testimony.1 See State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 523 , 1 As we observe in another case issued this same day, “our recent case law has left unresolved the question whether a party’s strategic choice not to object is relevant to the existence of plain error, or relevant only to the discretionary choice to correct such an error, or both.” State v. Vaninetti, __ Or App __, __, __ P3d __ (2025) (slip op at 8) (citing State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 , 334 n 2, 518 P3d 903 Cite as 346 Or App | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.