Summary
holding that error, in general, must be determined by the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial
Summary of this case from State v. GainesOpinion
July 1, 2003
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jul 1, 2003
335 Or. 504 (Or. 2003)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jul 1, 2003
335 Or. 504 (Or. 2003)
holding that error, in general, must be determined by the law existing at the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial
Summary of this case from State v. Gainesholding that whether error is "apparent" is determined by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from In the Court of Appeals of State v. Ramosholding that whether error is “apparent” is determined by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from State v. Ramosholding that “plain error” is determined by reference to the law existing at the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from State v. Huttonexplaining that we determine error based on the law as it existed at the time of the appellate decision, not at the time of the disputed ruling, and acknowledging the "ostensibly incongruous results" by using that approach
Summary of this case from State v. Towexplaining that we apply the law in effect at the time of appeal
Summary of this case from Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. F. (In re P. F.)explaining that we determine error based on the law as it existed at the time of the appellate decision, not at the time of the disputed ruling, and acknowledging the "ostensibly incongruous results" by that approach
Summary of this case from State v. Scottexplaining that we determine error based on the law as it existed at the time of the appellate decision, not at the time of the disputed ruling, and acknowledging the "ostensibly incongruous results" by that approach
Summary of this case from State v. Smithexplaining that we deter-mine error based on the law as it existed at the time of the appellate decision, not at the time of the disputed ruling, and acknowledging the "ostensibly incongruous results" by that approach
Summary of this case from Dep't of Human Servs. v. L. A. K. (In re K. B. K. K.)explaining that the court determines error based on the law as it exists at the time the appeal is decided, and not as it existed at the time of the ruling being reviewed
Summary of this case from Bell v. Hendricksexplaining that error is determined based on the law that exists at the time an issue is considered on appeal
Summary of this case from State v. Carpenterexplaining that error is determined based on the law that exists at the time of appeal rather than the time of the trial court’s ruling
Summary of this case from State v. Smithexplaining that the court determines whether error is plain based on the law as it exists at the time the appeal is decided, and not as it existed at the time of the ruling being reviewed
Summary of this case from State v. Hoseclawsetting out the three criteria for plain error
Summary of this case from State v. Harmonexplaining that error is determined based on the law that exists at the time of appeal rather than the time of the trial court’s ruling
Summary of this case from State v. Kelemenstating that, in most instances, it is appropriate to determine whether error occurred in reference to the law in effect at the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from Ossanna v. Nike, Inc.explaining that "plain error" is determined by reference to the law existing at the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from State v. Hornerexplaining that “plain error” is determined by reference to the law existing at the time the appeal is decided
Summary of this case from State v. Jonesreiterating that, under Ailes, the determination of whether a claim of error satisfies the requirements of "plain error" is merely the first step in a "two-step process"
Summary of this case from State v. Johnsonreiterating that, under Ailes, the determination of whether a claim of error satisfies the requirements of "plain error" is merely the first step in a "two-step process"
Summary of this case from State v. NewsonCase details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jul 1, 2003
Citations
335 Or. 504 (Or. 2003)
72 P.3d 636
Citing Cases
Lombardo v. Warner
THE CONTENT-BASED CHALLENGE In a letter filed by appellee Warner pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 28(j) just prior to…
State v. JonesORAP 5.45(4). In particular, the state relies on the rule in State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 57 P3d 970…