Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.010 (2026)

Mode of review; abolition of writs of error and certiorari

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      138.010 Mode of review; abolition of writs of error and certiorari. Writs of error and of certiorari in criminal actions are abolished. The only mode of reviewing a judgment or order in a criminal action is that prescribed by ORS 138.010 to 138.310.

 

      138.012 [1999 c.1055 §5; 2001 c.306 §2; renumbered 138.052 in 2017]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983). · cites it 4× “Ordinance section 138.010 set forth infra. The court relied exclusively on the acknowledged plan and ordinances, sections 138.”
State v. Partain, 239 P.3d 232 (Or. 2010). · cites it 2× “It provides: "Either the state or the defendant may as a matter of right appeal from a judgment in a criminal action in the cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.310, and not otherwise.”
State v. Sterner, 862 P.2d 1321 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “, whether this court has discretion to dismiss an appeal, notwithstanding the defendant's statutory right to appeal to this court under ORS 138.010, where the state asserts that the defendant has absconded from probation, and the defendant does not oppose that assertion.”
State v. Colby, 433 P.3d 447 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “020 ("Either the state or the defendant may as a matter of right appeal from a judgment in a criminal action in the cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.310, and not otherwise.”
State v. Jairl, 368 P.2d 323 (Or. 1962). · cites it 3× “appeal from a judgment in a criminal action “in the cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.440, and not otherwise.” ORS 138.”
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “020 is especially significant because that statute confers “the right [to] appeal from a judgment in a criminal action in the cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.310” (emphasis added), including, necessarily, ORS 138.”
Pratt v. Armenakis, 112 P.3d 371 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “]” ORS 138.010 provides that the “only mode of reviewing a judgment or order in a criminal action is that prescribed by ORS 138.”
State v. Montgomery, 657 P.2d 668 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “ORS 138.010 provides, “The only mode of reviewing a judgment or order in a criminal action is that prescribed by ORS 138.”
State v. Huffman, 297 P.2d 831 (Or. 1956). · cites it 3× “" ORS 138.010. The writ of error coram nobis as defined in State v.”
City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 619 P.2d 217 (Or. 1980). “020 provides that: "Either the state or the defendant may as a matter of right appeal from a judgment in a criminal action in cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.300, and not otherwise.”
State v. Moss, 279 P.3d 200 (Or. 2012). · cites it 2× “020 7 ("Either the state or the defendant may as a matter of right appeal from a judgment in a 8 criminal action in the cases prescribed in ORS 138.010 to 138.310, and not otherwise.”
State v. Arms, 653 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Therefore, the state asserts, under ORS 138.010, 1 the judgment for costs is not appealable and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.