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 1 courts 2024–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.green2 sentences2024For both of those reasons, we conclude that the “ends of justice” do not require us to overlook “the strong policies requiring preservation,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 , and exercise our discretion to correct the asserted unpreserved error. 2024For both of those reasons, we conclude that the “ends of justice” do not require us to overlook “the strong policies requiring preservation,” Ailes, 312 Or at 382 , and exercise our discretion to correct the asserted unpreserved error. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Wiltsegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 14-15 , 559 P3d 380 (2024); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (listing considerations in determining whether to exercise discretion). 2024See State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 14-15 , 559 P3d 380 (2024); Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 , 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (listing considerations in determining whether to exercise discretion). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hortongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion when, “viewing the records as a whole and in the context of the juries’ other findings, even though there is some likelihood that the verdict would have been different (such that the error was not legally harmless), it is an extremely low likelihood”); see also Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6. 2024See State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 263 , 535 P3d 338 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion when, “viewing the records as a whole and in the context of the juries’ other findings, even though there is some likelihood that the verdict would have been different (such that the error was not legally harmless), it is an extremely low likelihood”); see also Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bittle
neutral
1 sentence2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 778 (2025) 781 The state responds that defendant’s construction is not “obvious,” so as to permit review of the asserted unpreserved error, and we agree.1 Legal error is “obvious” when it is beyond reasonable dispute. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Serrano
green
2 sentences2025State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179-80 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014). 2025State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172, 179-80 , 324 P3d 1274 (2014). | 1 | 2025–2025 |