# State v. McLean

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 22, 1970 · 255 Or. 464

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9621851

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL ALLEN McLEAN, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 22, 1970
- **Citations:** 255 Or. 464; 468 P.2d 521; 1970 Ore. LEXIS 424
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Denecke
- **Judges:** Tongue, McAllister, Denecke
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9621851

## Opinion text

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion; however, I would dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that we should not have granted the petition for review.
The principal ground for the petition for review was the contention that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s error was not prejudicial. The facts involved in the alleged error were unusual and it is doubtful whether an issue, similar to this will arise again. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion, regardless of whether we were of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred, the question is not one of' such substance that we should have granted the petition for review. Even if we are of the opinion error has been committed, usually this alone should not be grounds for granting review; we should grant review only if the error raises an issue of importance beyond the immediate case. See note to Bule 47-A, Supreme Court Buies of Procedure.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9621851. Public record. Not legal advice.