Court of Appeals of Oregon· 12/21/2011

State v. S. J. F.

Citations

247 Or. App. 321
269 P.3d 83

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that “plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice”
exercising discretion to review trial court violation of ORS 426.100(1) as plain error when appellant told her attorney that the trial court “might as well” hold the commitment hearing without her
noting the signifi- cance of that distinction between A. R. and N. S.
defense counsel’s failure to object to holding a hearing without the defendant being present did not invite the error
failure to provide “all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1)” denies the benefit of a full and fair hearing
a violation of ORS 426.100(1) “constitutes an ‘egregious’ error that justifies plain error review” (quoting State v. Tardanico, 132 Or App 230, 231, 888 P2d 15 (1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Armstrong, Brewer, Duncan, Haselton, Nakamoto, Ortega, Schuman, Sercombe, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.