Opinion · Oregon Supreme Court
State v. Illig-Renn
State v. Illig-Renn, 337 Or. 327 (Or. 2004)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Oregon Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 2004-09-08
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- explaining that, “[o]rdinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument”
- explaining that we ordinarily “will decline to address an undeveloped argument”
- where party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court has obligation to correctly construe it, regardless of the parties’ arguments
- subject matter jurisdiction never waived; can be raised by any party or court sua sponte at any stage of proceedings
- “subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and can be raised by any party or by the court sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings”
- ORCP 68 C(4)(a)(i), which requires the filing of an attorney fee statement, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a fee award
- jurisdictional matters are never waived and can be raised at any stage in a proceeding
- “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Illig-Renn. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 89 opinions
99 P.3d 290 (2004) 337 Or. 327
STATE v. ILLIG-RENN
Supreme Court of Oregon.
September 8, 2004.Petition for review allowed. Respondent's petition for review allowed. The decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Ausmus, 336 Or. 493, 85 P.3d 864 (2004).