reason why rule in Oregon

2025The first category consists of comments the prosecutor made at the beginning of his closing argument while showing the jury a photo of D before his death, describing his death as “senseless” Nonprecedential Memo Op: 340 Or App 390 (2025) 395 and “tragic,” referring to his relationships with family and friends, and stating that “anything that [D] might’ve ever done, anything he might’ve ever become, any hope he had, any dream he dreamt, that all died with him[.]” The second category includes comments the prosecutor made regarding the opening statement of defendant’s lawyer, that he “prom- ised

2025The first category consists of comments the prosecutor made at the beginning of his closing argument while showing the jury a photo of D before his death, describing his death as “senseless” Nonprecedential Memo Op: 340 Or App 390 (2025) 395 and “tragic,” referring to his relationships with family and friends, and stating that “anything that [D] might’ve ever done, anything he might’ve ever become, any hope he had, any dream he dreamt, that all died with him[.]” The second category includes comments the prosecutor made regarding the opening statement of defendant’s lawyer, that he “prom- ised

1994Similarly, in Batdorff v. Oregon City, supra, 53 Or at 403-04 , the plaintiff brought an action against the city and individual members of its council for an injury caused by failure to repair a sidewalk.

1973“The reason why the rule which the defendant invokes is not applicable here is that a statement from the bench does not constitute a judgment until reduced to an order, decree or judgment. [Citations omitted.]” Barone v. Barone, 207 Or 26, 29 , 294 P2d 609 (1956).

1973“The reason why the rule which the defendant invokes is not applicable here is that a statement from the bench does not constitute a judgment until reduced to an order, decree or judgment. [Citations omitted.]” Barone v. Barone, 207 Or 26, 29 , 294 P2d 609 (1956).

1956Rowe v. Rowe, 76 Or 491, 496 , 149 P 533 ; Moffatt v. Lewis, 123 Cal App 307, 11 P2d 397 ; 49 CJS 28, Judgments §4; 33 CJ 1053, Judgments § 6, and cases cited in note 33 (c), p 1053.

1956Rowe v. Rowe, 76 Or 491, 496 , 149 P 533 ; Moffatt v. Lewis, 123 Cal App 307, 11 P2d 397 ; 49 CJS 28, Judgments §4; 33 CJ 1053, Judgments § 6, and cases cited in note 33 (c), p 1053.

1956Rowe v. Rowe, 76 Or 491, 496 , 149 P 533 ; Moffatt v. Lewis, 123 Cal App 307, 11 P2d 397 ; 49 CJS 28, Judgments §4; 33 CJ 1053, Judgments § 6, and cases cited in note 33 (c), p 1053.

1925All the cases which we can find hold that that *346 principle is not' applicable to cases where the loss was occasioned through the instrumentality of a criminal act, and base their reason for so holding-upon the fact that it is the crime and not the act of the innocent party which is the proximate and effective cause of the loss: Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46 ( 52 Pac. 115 , 39 L.

1925All the cases which we can find hold that that *346 principle is not' applicable to cases where the loss was occasioned through the instrumentality of a criminal act, and base their reason for so holding-upon the fact that it is the crime and not the act of the innocent party which is the proximate and effective cause of the loss: Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46 ( 52 Pac. 115 , 39 L.