Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Dahl

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 17, 1999No. 9607-82023; CA A101013PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Appellant, who is the mother in this juvenile court dependency proceeding, moves pursuant to ORS 19.420(3) to reverse the juvenile court’s judgment establishing jurisdiction and for a new trial because “portions of the [trial] proceedings were not recorded and were permanently lost as part of the record.” Appellant contends, particularly, that because our review is de novo, ORS 419A.200(5) and ORS 19.415(3), she is not obligated to make a prima facie showing of error or unfairness in the trial proceedings. We reject that argument and, accordingly, deny the motion.

ORS 19.420(3) reads as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Ethyl Corporation v. JalbertOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Smith v. Custom Micro, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Bingman v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  5. State v. BonnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. CutriCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API