showing violation in Oregon

2022“From this examination, we find no indication of a legisla- tive intent to limit the imposition of the sanctions of ORS 135.865 to cases in which noncompliance with discovery Cite as 321 Or App 460 (2022) 473 requirements is shown to cause prejudice or, more specifi- cally, to require a showing that such a violation has caused ‘substantial prejudice’ to the other party before a court may exclude undisclosed evidence.” Id. at 34.

2021We review DHS’s determination that the rule in question is Cite as 311 Or App 702 (2021) 713 constitutional for errors of law.

2014ORS 19.415(2) puts it this way: “No judgment shall be reversed * * * except for error substantially affecting the rights of a party.” In Shoup , we analyzed and applied that provision, noting that “reversal of a judgment is the exception, not the rule” and that, while the standard for reversal is neutral as between plaintiffs and defendants, “it places the burden to make a record that demonstrates prejudicial error on whichever party loses in the trial court and then seeks reversal or modification of the judgment on appeal.” 335 Or at 173-74 . 1 Moreover, when a party seeks reversal of a jury

2007Howard v. Waremart, Inc., 147 Or App 135, 142-43 , 935 P2d 432 , rev den, 325 Or 491 (1997).

2007Howard v. Waremart, Inc., 147 Or App 135, 142-43 , 935 P2d 432 , rev den, 325 Or 491 (1997).

1992Some of the cases applying Ethyl Corp. [v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651 , 529 P2d 368 (1974)] have discussed the nature of the errors that the missing record might have revealed in terms that suggest that the court was concerned about whether the errors, even if they existed, would have warranted reversal.

1992Some of the cases applying Ethyl Corp. [v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651 , 529 P2d 368 (1974)] have discussed the nature of the errors that the missing record might have revealed in terms that suggest that the court was concerned about whether the errors, even if they existed, would have warranted reversal.

1981The Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 , 64 S.Ct. 587 , 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944).” The determinative factor is legislative intent.

1981The Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 , 64 S.Ct. 587 , 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944).” The determinative factor is legislative intent.

1981NOTES [1] The Court of Appeals stated: "Though we may not approve of the conduct of the prosecutor, there is no ground for reversal of defendant's conviction in the absence of a showing of an instruction not to cooperate with the defense which in fact resulted in a refusal to cooperate." 51 Or.

1981App. at 160 , 624 P.2d 660 .