Loading…

State v. Kammeyer — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

State v. Kammeyer

346 Or. 590 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 2009

Full text

State v. Kammeyer

214 P.3d 822 (2009) 346 Or. 590 STATE v. KAMMEYER. No. (S057506). Supreme Court of Oregon. July 29, 2009. Petition for review denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 2629003

Citations

346 Or. 590
214 P.3d 822

Cited by

State v. Dallavis
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2018
State v. Saunders
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 12, 2018
State v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 13, 2018
State v. Flack
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 2018
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2018
Jones v. Mears
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2017
State v. Rogers
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2016
State v. Scott
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2016
Miller v. Columbia County
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2016
State v. Berndt

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 2016

Hansen v. Board of Commissioners

Benton County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jun 15, 2016

Springville Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2016

Parentheticals

a party who is actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot obtain reversal on appeal based on that error
Underwood
“[A] party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Manusos v. Skeels
“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Doe v. Lake Oswego School District
"Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
State v. Smith
under doctrine of invited error, “a party who was actively instrumental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Springville Corp. v. Stoel Rives LLP
“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who ‘was actively instrumental in bringing about’ an alleged error ‘cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.’” (Quoting Anderson v. Oregon Railroad Co., 45 Or 211, 216-17, 77 P 119 (1904).)
State v. Scott