49 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2026 47 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. Macygreen2 sentences2025A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal cita- tions omitted). “[A] defendant is not required to preserve a challenge to a portion of a sentence that appeared for the first time in a judgment because the defendant had no opportunity to preserve the challenge at a hearing where that sentence was never announced.” State v. Macy, 312 Or App 234 , 236 n 2, 492 P3d 1277 (2021). 2025A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal cita- tions omitted). “[A] defendant is not required to preserve a challenge to a portion of a sentence that appeared for the first time in a judgment because the defendant had no opportunity to preserve the challenge at a hearing where that sentence was never announced.” State v. Macy, 312 Or App 234 , 236 n 2, 492 P3d 1277 (2021). | 2 | 11 |
State v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2025A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal citations omit- ted); see also State v. Dennis, 303 Or App 595, 596 , 464 P3d 518 (2020) (“We have repeatedly held that a trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not pronounce at sentencing.”). 2025A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal citations omit- ted); see also State v. Dennis, 303 Or App 595, 596 , 464 P3d 518 (2020) (“We have repeatedly held that a trial court errs when it imposes fines or fees in a written judgment that it did not pronounce at sentencing.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schay-Viverogreen2 sentences2025See also State v. Schay-Vivero, 333 Or App 168, 169 , 552 P3d 150 , 151 (2024). 2025See also State v. Schay-Vivero, 333 Or App 168, 169 , 552 P3d 150 , 151 (2024). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barrgreen2 sentences2026E.g., Barr, 331 Or App at 245 (remanding for resentencing when imposition of fees was not announced at sentencing); see Priester, 325 Or App 581 (a trial court commits reversible error if it does not announce a sentencing term in open court, “and the result is usually a resentencing”). 2024Although it is not entirely clear from the record, we understand the reference to per diem fees in the judgment of conviction for harass- ment to refer to the fees authorized by ORS 169.151(1).2 The state responds to defendant’s first assignment of error by arguing that any error in ordering defendant to pay “any required per diem fees” does “not provide a basis for reversal,” because the error “is both moot and harmless.” During the pendency of this appeal, we decided State v. Barr, 331 Or App 242 , 545 P3d 772 (2024), which is controlling and requires that we remand for resentencing in this | 1 | 3 |
State v. Pembertongreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 288-89 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (reversing and remanding for resentencing on felony assault charges after holding that the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to 13 months in prison based on the mistaken belief that it was required to impose a sentence that exceeded 12 months); State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 214-15 , 164 P3d 334 (2007) (agreeing with the defendant that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that ORS 137.712 — which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing-guidelines sentence of less than the man 2015See, e.g., State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 288-89 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (reversing and remanding for resentencing on felony assault charges after holding that the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to 13 months in prison based on the mistaken belief that it was required to impose a sentence that exceeded 12 months); State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 214-15 , 164 P3d 334 (2007) (agreeing with the defendant that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that ORS 137.712 — which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing-guidelines sentence of less than the man | 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. Priester
green
2 sentences2026A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal citations omit- ted). 2026A trial court commits reversible error if it does not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v. Priester, 325 Or App 574, 581 , 530 P3d 118 , rev den, 371 Or 332 (2023) (internal citations omit- ted). | 30 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Bates
green
2 sentences2024State v. Bates, 315 Or App 402, 404 , 500 P3d 746 (2021). 2024State v. Bates, 315 Or App 402, 404 , 500 P3d 746 (2021). | 7 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Harper
green
2 sentences2025“A trial court commits reversible error when it incorrectly instructs the jury on a material element of a claim or defense and that instructional error permits the jury to reach a legally erro- neous result.” Id. (citing State v. Harper, 296 Or App 125, 126 , 436 P3d 44 (2019)). 2025“A trial court commits reversible error when it incorrectly instructs the jury on a material element of a claim or defense and that instructional error permits the jury to reach a legally erro- neous result.” Id. (citing State v. Harper, 296 Or App 125, 126 , 436 P3d 44 (2019)). | 5 | 2021–2025 |
State v. Prophet
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 318 Or App 330 (2022) 333 III. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Arnold
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 288-89 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (reversing and remanding for resentencing on felony assault charges after holding that the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to 13 months in prison based on the mistaken belief that it was required to impose a sentence that exceeded 12 months); State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 214-15 , 164 P3d 334 (2007) (agreeing with the defendant that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that ORS 137.712 — which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing-guidelines sentence of less than the man 2015See, e.g., State v. Pemberton, 226 Or App 285, 288-89 , 203 P3d 326 (2009) (reversing and remanding for resentencing on felony assault charges after holding that the trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant to 13 months in prison based on the mistaken belief that it was required to impose a sentence that exceeded 12 months); State v. Arnold, 214 Or App 201, 214-15 , 164 P3d 334 (2007) (agreeing with the defendant that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that ORS 137.712 — which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing-guidelines sentence of less than the man | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wallach v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Co., 344 Or 314, 329 , 180 P3d 19 (2008)). 2014Co., 344 Or 314, 329 , 180 P3d 19 (2008)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bistrika
green
1 sentence2014As we explained in Bistrika , the trial court commits reversible error when it incorrectly instructs a jury on a material element of a claim or defense and that erroneous instruction, in light of the other instructions given, permits the jury to reach a legally erroneous result. 261 Or App at 727 -28 (citing Wallach v. Allstate Ins. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.