State v. Atwood

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, even when a mat- ter is tried to the court, a party must preserve a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the other party’s evidence either by making an appropriate motion or by clearly challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence in closing argument
• “[W]e normally will not exercise [our] discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain-error review and concomitant plain-error arguments.”
• although this court has discretion to correct a plain error, we “normally will not exercise that discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain- error review and concomitant plain-error arguments”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Dept. of Human Services v. D. F.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-11-20· cited 3×
• State v. Galitzen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-11-19· cited 3×
• State v. Efimoff
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-01-07· cited 2×
• State v. Atwood
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-05-08
• State v. Landowski
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2026-04-08

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Wyatt
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2000-12-01· cited 659×
• State v. Vanornum
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2013-12-27· cited 546×
• State v. Ardizzone
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-05-06· cited 106×
• State v. Ness
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2006-06-27· cited 37×
• State v. Forrester
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-12-14· cited 28×
• State v. Baker-Krofft
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2010-08-19· cited 23×
• State v. Taylor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-12-29· cited 23×
• State v. McCants
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-11-04· cited 11×
• State v. Bainbridge
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-09-02· cited 8×