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).