Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2025 6 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. Hortongreen2 sentences2025“We have not treated failure to instruct on a mental-state element as the type of plain error that is so grave as to merit the exer- cise of discretion in every case.” Id. at 266 . 3 Under ORS 164.045(1), a person commits second-degree theft when, among other requirements, “[t]he total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $100 or more and less than $1,000.” 390 State v. Heward Having considered the “particular facts” of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the error. 2025Id. (“Each case * * * must necessarily be decided on its own particular facts.”). | 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. Laune
green
2 sentences2024Despite acknowledging that we have frequently exercised our discretion to correct this type of plain error in the past, the state encourages us not to exercise our discre- tion, comparing this case to State v. Laune, 316 Or App 225 , 502 P3d 261 (2021). 2024Despite acknowledging that we have frequently exercised our discretion to correct this type of plain error in the past, the state encourages us not to exercise our discre- tion, comparing this case to State v. Laune, 316 Or App 225 , 502 P3d 261 (2021). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Deanda
green
2 sentences2024In Laune, we determined that the same error was plain, but elected not to exercise our discretion to correct the error based on a number of factors, including Cite as 331 Or App 217 (2024) 223 that a conclusion that the defendant would not have been able to pay absent the security funds had not been made and was far from certain, given that the defendant had been employed, had stated his intention to pay his relative back for the security funds, and was planning to rent out his home to generate income. 316 Or App at 228-29 . 2024In Laune, we determined that the same error was plain, but elected not to exercise our discretion to correct the error based on a number of factors, including Cite as 331 Or App 217 (2024) 223 that a conclusion that the defendant would not have been able to pay absent the security funds had not been made and was far from certain, given that the defendant had been employed, had stated his intention to pay his relative back for the security funds, and was planning to rent out his home to generate income. 316 Or App at 228-29 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. R. E. J.
neutral
2 sentences2021J., 306 Or App 647 , 474 P3d 461 (2020), we reversed based on the same type of plain error, where the record lacked evidence that the citation had been served. 2021J., 306 Or App 647 , 474 P3d 461 (2020), we reversed based on the same type of plain error, where the record lacked evidence that the citation had been served. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ulery
green
2 sentences2021It also explained that “the receipt of a nonunanimous guilty verdict is the type of plain error that an appellate court should exer- cise its discretion to review, and it is an error that cannot be found harmless.” Kincheloe, 367 Or at 339 (citing State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020)). 2021It also explained that “the receipt of a nonunanimous guilty verdict is the type of plain error that an appellate court should exer- cise its discretion to review, and it is an error that cannot be found harmless.” Kincheloe, 367 Or at 339 (citing State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020)). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Kincheloe
green
1 sentence2021It also explained that “the receipt of a nonunanimous guilty verdict is the type of plain error that an appellate court should exer- cise its discretion to review, and it is an error that cannot be found harmless.” Kincheloe, 367 Or at 339 (citing State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |