Court of Appeals of Oregon· 12/21/2005

State v. Wideman

Citations

124 P.3d 1271
203 Or. App. 359
2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1635

How courts have described this case

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

reaching the same conclusion under the same statute when the state simply could not explain its delay
preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument”
preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument”
preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument”
preservation rules are meant to ensure “that the position of a party is presented clearly to the trial court and that parties are not taken by surprise, misled, or denied opportunities to meet an argument”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edmonds, Wollheim, Breithaupt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.