State v. Welsh

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to follow Bucholz because “if the matter had been brought to the trial court’s attention, the trial court could not have made the necessary findings” (emphasis added)
• “Plain error review would not undermine the purpose of the pres- ervation rule because, if the matter had been brought to the trial court’s attention, the trial court could not have made the necessary findings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Criswell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-11-09· cited 7×
• State v. Opitz
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-09-23· cited 4×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1991-12-12· cited 1,060×
• State v. Brown
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1990-09-20· cited 504×
• State v. Fults
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2007-12-13· cited 218×
• State v. Bucholz
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-08-05· cited 67×
• State v. Reynolds
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-06-20· cited 63×
• State v. Ohling
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1984-10-10· cited 58×
• State v. Cardell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2002-03-13· cited 21×
• State v. Campbell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-10-08· cited 7×
• State v. Sosa
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-12-24· cited 6×