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.
44 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 34 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. Hortongreen2 sentences2026The likelihood that an error affected the verdict goes to its gravity and to the ends of justice, and “our assessment of where [the error] falls on the spectrum of ‘likelihood’ of having affected the verdict can be an important consideration to the exercise of discretion.” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 264 , 535 P3d 338 (2023). 2026The likelihood that an error affected the verdict goes to its gravity and to the ends of justice, and “our assessment of where [the error] falls on the spectrum of ‘likelihood’ of having affected the verdict can be an important consideration to the exercise of discretion.” State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256, 264 , 535 P3d 338 (2023). | 12 | 25 |
State v. Inmangreen2 sentences2025If I were to follow Ortiz II as I read it, I would not reach the issue of whether this testimony was scientific because, considering the theories of the parties and the evidence against defendant, the testimony was harmless as it 3 As an aside, Reid is also inapt for such use because it involved a concession by the state not only as to the error, but as to whether the court should exercise its discretion, effectively removing any articulation of a critical analysis of the particulars of the case from consideration on appeal. 312 Or App at 544 . *49 had little likelihood of affecting the verdic 2023The likelihood that the error affected the outcome goes to its “gravity” and to “the ends of justice.” Inman, 275 Or App at 936 (“[T]he error in to submit a required element of an offense to the jury is a federal constitutional error” and that the federal harmlessness standard requires that “the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defendant in the present case has not claimed a federal constitutional violation, instead arguing only under the state constitutional harmlessness standard. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Mellogreen2 sentences2025See State v. Mello, 332 Or App 215, 222 , 549 P3d 42 , rev den, 372 Or 763 (2024) (stating that the likelihood that an error affected the verdict goes to its gravity and to the ends of justice). 2025See State v. Mello, 332 Or App 215, 222 , 549 P3d 42 , rev den, 372 Or 763 (2024) (stating that the likelihood that an error affected the verdict goes to its gravity and to the ends of justice). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2024In Ortiz, for example, the officer only administered the walk-and-turn and the one-leg-stand FSTs, and she bolstered her testimony about both of those FSTs with testimony that we concluded was scientific in nature. 325 Or App at 136, 138 . 2024In Ortiz, for example, the officer only administered the walk-and-turn and the one-leg-stand FSTs, and she bolstered her testimony about both of those FSTs with testimony that we concluded was scientific in nature. 325 Or App at 136, 138 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Ramirez, 343 Or 505, 513 , 173 P3d 817 (2007) (consideration of the likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding below for determination of the gravity of the error).39 That is especially true because Nelson’s and Nicol’s impermissible opinions were not ones that a juror was likely to overlook. 2019See State v. Ramirez, 343 Or 505, 513 , 173 P3d 817 (2007) (consideration of the likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding below for determination of the gravity of the error).39 That is especially true because Nelson’s and Nicol’s impermissible opinions were not ones that a juror was likely to overlook. | 1 | 3 |
Purdy v. Deere & Co.green2 sentences2021Assessing whether an alleged instructional error is harmless “requires us to conduct a review of the whole record to assess the likelihood that the error permitted the jury to reach an incorrect result.” Purdy v. Deere and Company, 281 Or App 407, 430 , 386 P3d 2 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 100 (2017). 2021Assessing whether an alleged instructional error is harmless “requires us to conduct a review of the whole record to assess the likelihood that the error permitted the jury to reach an incorrect result.” Purdy v. Deere and Company, 281 Or App 407, 430 , 386 P3d 2 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 100 (2017). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Roygreen2 sentences2024See Horton, 327 Or App at 264 (“The likelihood that the error affected the outcome goes to its ‘gravity’ and to ‘the ends of justice.’ ”); see also State v. Roy, 275 Or App 107, 113 , 364 P3d 1003 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (recognizing that we exercise our discretion with “utmost caution,” taking into account “the ends of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2024See Horton, 327 Or App at 264 (“The likelihood that the error affected the outcome goes to its ‘gravity’ and to ‘the ends of justice.’ ”); see also State v. Roy, 275 Or App 107, 113 , 364 P3d 1003 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (recognizing that we exercise our discretion with “utmost caution,” taking into account “the ends of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Fairbrother v. Rinkergreen2 sentences2021See Fairbrother v. Rinker, 274 Or 525, 529-30 , 547 P2d 605 (1976) (explaining that, although instructions could be interpreted as conveying the law correctly, “the instruction would still be prejudicial and reversible error if it can also be interpreted to bear the meaning which plaintiff attributes to it”). 2021See Fairbrother v. Rinker, 274 Or 525, 529-30 , 547 P2d 605 (1976) (explaining that, although instructions could be interpreted as conveying the law correctly, “the instruction would still be prejudicial and reversible error if it can also be interpreted to bear the meaning which plaintiff attributes to it”). | 1 | 1 |
Montara Owners Assn. v. La Noue Development, LLCgreen1 sentence2019“Generally, little likelihood is not enough, but more—that is some or a significant likelihood that the error influenced the result—will suffice for reversal.” Montara Owners Assn., 357 Or at 351 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Mechler, 157 Or App 161, 165-66 , 969 P2d 1043 (1998) (“Substantial rights of a defendant are not affected when there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mechlergreen2 sentences2019“Generally, little likelihood is not enough, but more—that is some or a significant likelihood that the error influenced the result—will suffice for reversal.” Montara Owners Assn., 357 Or at 351 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Mechler, 157 Or App 161, 165-66 , 969 P2d 1043 (1998) (“Substantial rights of a defendant are not affected when there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 2019“Generally, little likelihood is not enough, but more—that is some or a significant likelihood that the error influenced the result—will suffice for reversal.” Montara Owners Assn., 357 Or at 351 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Mechler, 157 Or App 161, 165-66 , 969 P2d 1043 (1998) (“Substantial rights of a defendant are not affected when there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
Lindstrom v. Myersgreen2 sentences1978Lindstrom, 273 Or. at 50, 51 , 539 P.2d 1049 . 1978Lindstrom, 273 Or. at 50, 51 , 539 P.2d 1049 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Purdy v. Deere & Co.
green
2 sentences2016“In the context of instructional error, that standard will generally be met if, ‘when the instructions are considered as a whole in light of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case at trial [,] there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result[.]’” Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC, 272 Or App 87, 92 , 353 P3d 1243 (2015) (quoting Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 232 , 324 P3d 455 (2014)); see also Purdy, 281 Or App at 430 (“If there is little likelihood’ that an error affected the verdict, we may not reverse; if there is some likelihood or a s 2016“In the context of instructional error, that standard will generally be met if, ‘when the instructions are considered as a whole in light of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case at trial [,] there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result[.]’” Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC, 272 Or App 87, 92 , 353 P3d 1243 (2015) (quoting Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 232 , 324 P3d 455 (2014)); see also Purdy, 281 Or App at 430 (“If there is little likelihood’ that an error affected the verdict, we may not reverse; if there is some likelihood or a s | 4 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2024We must now assess the likelihood that the instruction, given in error, “affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). 2024We must now assess the likelihood that the instruction, given in error, “affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32 , 77 P3d 1111 (2003). | 3 | 2009–2024 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences2025State v. Hall, 336 Or App 812 , 823-25, 562 P3d 284 (2024), rev den, 373 Or 712 (2025), illustrates those principles. 2025State v. Hall, 336 Or App 812 , 823-25, 562 P3d 284 (2024), rev den, 373 Or 712 (2025), illustrates those principles. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sell
green
2 sentences2024I disagree that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error, however, because in my view, the likelihood that the error affected the verdict is “extremely low.” State v. Sell, 328 Or App 82, 95 , 536 P3d 1019 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion to correct as plain error failure to instruct the jury that defendant had to be at least criminally negligent with respect to the injury element of an offense, because there was an “extremely low” likelihood that the error affected the verdict). 2024I disagree that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error, however, because in my view, the likelihood that the error affected the verdict is “extremely low.” State v. Sell, 328 Or App 82, 95 , 536 P3d 1019 (2023) (declining to exercise discretion to correct as plain error failure to instruct the jury that defendant had to be at least criminally negligent with respect to the injury element of an offense, because there was an “extremely low” likelihood that the error affected the verdict). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Reid
green
1 sentence2025If I were to follow Ortiz II as I read it, I would not reach the issue of whether this testimony was scientific because, considering the theories of the parties and the evidence against defendant, the testimony was harmless as it 3 As an aside, Reid is also inapt for such use because it involved a concession by the state not only as to the error, but as to whether the court should exercise its discretion, effectively removing any articulation of a critical analysis of the particulars of the case from consideration on appeal. 312 Or App at 544 . *49 had little likelihood of affecting the verdic | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Harryman
green
2 sentences2025The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the statutory elements of the offense, see State v. Harryman, 277 Or App 346, 358 , 371 P3d 1213 , rev den, 360 Or 401 (2016), and the verdict form directed the jury to make a specific finding that defendant used or threatened to use a firearm. 2025The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the statutory elements of the offense, see State v. Harryman, 277 Or App 346, 358 , 371 P3d 1213 , rev den, 360 Or 401 (2016), and the verdict form directed the jury to make a specific finding that defendant used or threatened to use a firearm. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Owen
green
2 sentences2024In assessing the likelihood that the verdict was impacted by the court’s failure to instruct on a mental state, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” Raney, 331 Or App at 704 (quoting State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 323 , 505 P3d 953 (2022)). 2024In assessing the likelihood that the verdict was impacted by the court’s failure to instruct on a mental state, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” Raney, 331 Or App at 704 (quoting State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 323 , 505 P3d 953 (2022)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Raney
green
1 sentence2024In assessing the likelihood that the verdict was impacted by the court’s failure to instruct on a mental state, “we consider the instructions ‘as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties’ theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue.’ ” Raney, 331 Or App at 704 (quoting State v. Owen, 369 Or 288, 323 , 505 P3d 953 (2022)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Pergande
green
2 sentences2023The likelihood that the error affected the outcome goes to its “gravity” and to “the ends of justice.” Id.; see also State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 936 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (“[T]he error in this case was not particularly grave, in terms of its likelihood of affecting the verdict[.]”); State v. Pergande, 270 Or App 280, 285-86 , 348 P3d 245 (2015) (citing “the ends of justice and the gravity of the error” in exercising discretion to correct a plain error that was “likely” harmful and carried a “significant risk” that it affected the verdict). 2023The likelihood that the error affected the outcome goes to its “gravity” and to “the ends of justice.” Id.; see also State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 936 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (“[T]he error in this case was not particularly grave, in terms of its likelihood of affecting the verdict[.]”); State v. Pergande, 270 Or App 280, 285-86 , 348 P3d 245 (2015) (citing “the ends of justice and the gravity of the error” in exercising discretion to correct a plain error that was “likely” harmful and carried a “significant risk” that it affected the verdict). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Tyon
green
2 sentences2018App. at 442 , 204 P.3d 106 (citing State v. Davis , 336 Or. 19 , 32, 77 P.3d 1111 (2003) ). 2018Our task when assessing the harmfulness of a trial court's error is to determine whether the "particular issue to which the error pertains has a relationship to the jury's determination of its verdict, and, if so, the likelihood that the error affected the verdict." Tyon , 226 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC
green
2 sentences2016“In the context of instructional error, that standard will generally be met if, ‘when the instructions are considered as a whole in light of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case at trial [,] there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result[.]’” Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC, 272 Or App 87, 92 , 353 P3d 1243 (2015) (quoting Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 232 , 324 P3d 455 (2014)); see also Purdy, 281 Or App at 430 (“If there is little likelihood’ that an error affected the verdict, we may not reverse; if there is some likelihood or a s 2016“In the context of instructional error, that standard will generally be met if, ‘when the instructions are considered as a whole in light of the evidence and the parties’ theories of the case at trial [,] there is some likelihood that the jury reached a legally erroneous result[.]’” Dosanjh v. Namaste Indian Restaurant, LLC, 272 Or App 87, 92 , 353 P3d 1243 (2015) (quoting Purdy v. Deere and Company, 355 Or 204, 232 , 324 P3d 455 (2014)); see also Purdy, 281 Or App at 430 (“If there is little likelihood’ that an error affected the verdict, we may not reverse; if there is some likelihood or a s | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.
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.