1 For an error to be plain error, it must be an error of law, obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences; in determining whether to exercise its discretion to consider an error that qualifies as a plain error, the court takes into account a non-exclusive list of factors, including the interests of the parties, the nature of the case, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice in the particular case. See State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30, 317 P3d 889 (2013). See also ORS: "Subject to Article VII (Amended) section . Oregon Constitution, the appellate court shall not reverse, modify or vacate a trial court judgment or order if there is little likelihood that any error affected the outcome."
2 Standards of review include but are not limited to de novo review and substantial evidence for factual issues, errors of law and abuse of discretion for legal issues, and special statutory standards of review such as those found in the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS, and ORS . See also ORS , which provides that, generally, "upon an appeal in an action or proceeding, without regard to whether the action or proceeding was triable to the court or a jury," the court's review "shall be as provided in section , Article VII (Amended) of the Oregon Constitution"; ORS regarding discretion of the Court of Appeals to try the cause de novo or make one or more factual findings anew on appeal in some equitable proceedings; see also ORAP concerning appellant's request for the court to exercise de novo review and providing a list of nonexclusive items Court of Appeals may consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion.
3See State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 587-94, 288 P3d 567 (2012) (discussing cases in which Court of Appeals declined to review for plain error absent a request from the appellant).