Loading…
Opinion
2004 Ore. LEXIS 599 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2004
Full text
State v. Illig-Renn
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2023
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2022
Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2022
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 2021
Parentheticals
explaining that, “[o]rdinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument”
explaining that we ordinarily “will decline to address an undeveloped argument”
subject matter jurisdiction never waived; can be raised by any party or court sua sponte at any stage of proceedings
Mount Hood Community College Ex Rel. K & H Drywall, Inc. v. Federal Insurance
where party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court has obligation to correctly construe it, regardless of the parties’ arguments
“subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and can be raised by any party or by the court sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings”
where party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court has obligation to correctly construe it, regardless of the parties’ arguments
jurisdictional matters are never waived and can be raised at any stage in a proceeding
ORCP 68 C(4)(a)(i), which requires the filing of an attorney fee statement, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a fee award
“Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.”
“Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.”
“[W]here a term has an unambiguous meaning, the fact that it could lead to an absurd result does not justify interpreting it to mean something else.”
record supported post-conviction court’s implicit finding that prosecutor would not have offered a better plea if peti- tioner’s counsel had submitted the results of a polygraph
