6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Cagreen2 sentences2016A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 182 , 205 P3d 36 (2009) (juvenile court’s error in failing to include all statutorily required findings was not subject to the constraints of plain error review *701 because the mother had no practical ability to raise the issue before the permanency judgment issued within 20 days of the hearing); cf. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 628-29 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (rule of civil procedure did not limit the Court of Appeals’ authority to review the merits of defendant’s unpreserved claims of instructional error according to principles regarding preservation and plain er 2016A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 182 , 205 P3d 36 (2009) (juvenile court’s error in failing to include all statutorily required findings was not subject to the constraints of plain error review *701 because the mother had no practical ability to raise the issue before the permanency judgment issued within 20 days of the hearing); cf. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 628-29 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (rule of civil procedure did not limit the Court of Appeals’ authority to review the merits of defendant’s unpreserved claims of instructional error according to principles regarding preservation and plain er | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Human Services v. T. L.
green
1 sentence2016A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 182 , 205 P3d 36 (2009) (juvenile court’s error in failing to include all statu- torily required findings was not subject to the constraints of plain error review Cite as 358 Or 679 (2016) 701 father, as for most laypersons, the first opportunity to raise the issue of inadequate representation did not arise until he was able to consult with appellate counsel. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Vanornum
green
2 sentences2016A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 182 , 205 P3d 36 (2009) (juvenile court’s error in failing to include all statutorily required findings was not subject to the constraints of plain error review *701 because the mother had no practical ability to raise the issue before the permanency judgment issued within 20 days of the hearing); cf. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 628-29 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (rule of civil procedure did not limit the Court of Appeals’ authority to review the merits of defendant’s unpreserved claims of instructional error according to principles regarding preservation and plain er 2016A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 182 , 205 P3d 36 (2009) (juvenile court’s error in failing to include all statutorily required findings was not subject to the constraints of plain error review *701 because the mother had no practical ability to raise the issue before the permanency judgment issued within 20 days of the hearing); cf. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 628-29 , 317 P3d 889 (2013) (rule of civil procedure did not limit the Court of Appeals’ authority to review the merits of defendant’s unpreserved claims of instructional error according to principles regarding preservation and plain er | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Department of Human Services v. W. F.
neutral
2 sentences2011F., 240 Or App 443 , 247 P3d 329 (2011) (reversing and remanding judgment that failed to comply with ORS 419B.476(5), despite lack of objection below); Dept. of Human Services v. J. 2011F., 240 Or App 443 , 247 P3d 329 (2011) (reversing and remanding judgment that failed to comply with ORS 419B.476(5), despite lack of objection below); Dept. of Human Services v. J. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Peeples v. Lampert
green
2 sentences2010In other words, mother had ‘no practical ability to raise [the] issue,’ Peeples [v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008)], because the issue did not arise until the court entered the judgment. *144 Because the error in the judgment that mother raises on appeal is not one that she failed to preserve, it is not one that is subject to the constraints of plain error review.” M. 2010In other words, mother had ‘no practical ability to raise [the] issue,’ Peeples [v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 220 , 191 P3d 637 (2008)], because the issue did not arise until the court entered the judgment. *144 Because the error in the judgment that mother raises on appeal is not one that she failed to preserve, it is not one that is subject to the constraints of plain error review.” M. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.