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.
6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 5 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. Atwoodgreen2 sentences2026See ORAP 5.45(7) (“The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should consider the error.” (Footnote omitted.)); State v. Atwood, 332 Or App 495 , 498 n 2, 549 P3d 51 (2024) (“[W]e normally will not exercise [our] discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain-error review and concomitant plain-error arguments.”). 2026See ORAP 5.45(7) (“The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should consider the error.” (Footnote omitted.)); State v. Atwood, 332 Or App 495 , 498 n 2, 549 P3d 51 (2024) (“[W]e normally will not exercise [our] discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain-error review and concomitant plain-error arguments.”). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Reyes-Camarenagreen2 sentences2005He urges, however, that this court should consider this claim of error as an “error apparent on the face of the record[.]” ORAP 5.45(6); see State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 435 , 7 P3d 522 (2000) (explaining and applying plain error doctrine). 2005He urges, however, that this court should consider this claim of error as an “error apparent on the face of the record[.]” ORAP 5.45(6); see State v. Reyes-Camarena, 330 Or 431, 435 , 7 P3d 522 (2000) (explaining and applying plain error doctrine). | 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. Nichols
green
1 sentence2023In cases of unequivocal invocations, the defendant often expresses “his or her intent by first self-identifying as the actor (‘I’) and then by clearly stating the desired action or view relating to the right[.]” Id. at 110 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.