juvenile court committed plain error (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

juvenile court committed plain error in Oregon

6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.green
orctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022S. S., 307 Or App at 45 (declining to review as plain error a juvenile court judgment where the juvenile court amended the petition by announcing an additional finding on the record and including that finding in the judgment).

11
Belgarde v. Linngreen
orctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief."); Belgarde v. Linn , 205 Or.

11
State Ex Rel Juv. Dept. v. NLDgreen
orctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018App. 132 , 136, 246 P.3d 54 (2010) ("Second, in his reply brief, youth asserts that the juvenile court committed plain error by ordering him to pay restitution to the account.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. green
or · 1991
2 sentences

2010Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 , 823 P2d 956 (1991).

2010Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 , 823 P2d 956 (1991).

22010–2010
Daves v. Kohan green
orctapp · 2016
2 sentences

2022D. v. S. K., 282 Or App 243, 249 , 385 P3d 1161 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 439 (2017) (declining to consider a particular argument on appeal “because it is unpreserved and petitioner does not request plain error review”).

2022D. v. S. K., 282 Or App 243, 249 , 385 P3d 1161 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 439 (2017) (declining to consider a particular argument on appeal “because it is unpreserved and petitioner does not request plain error review”).

12022–2022
Department of Human Services v. M. U. L. green
orctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2016Id.

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.809 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 21 (2006–2025) UT 10 (2003–2025) OR 6 (2010–2022) MO 2 (2021–2022) NE 2 (2016–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check