(1) Assignments of error are required in all opening briefs of appellants and cross- appellants. No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court and is assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with this rule, provided that the appellate court may, in its discretion, consider a plain error.1
(2) Each assignment of error must be separately stated under a numbered heading. The arrangement and form of assignments of error, together with reference to pages of the record, should conform to the illustrations in Appendix 5.45.
(3) Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural, factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.
(4) (a) Each assignment of error must demonstrate that the question or issue presented by the assignment of error timely and properly was raised and preserved in the lower court. The court may decline to consider any assignment of error that requires the court to search the record to find the error or to determine if the error properly was raised and preserved. Under the subheading “Preservation of Error”:
(i) Each assignment of error, as appropriate, must specify the stage in the proceedings when the question or issue presented by the assignment of error was raised in the lower court, the method or manner of raising it, and the way in which it was resolved or passed on by the lower court.
(ii) Each assignment of error must set out pertinent quotations of the record where the question or issue was raised and the challenged ruling was made, together with reference to the pages of the transcript or other parts of the record quoted or to the excerpt of record if the material quoted is set out in the excerpt of record. When the parts of the record relied on under this clause are lengthy, they must be included in the excerpt of record instead of the body of the brief.
(iii) If an assignment of error challenges an evidentiary ruling, the assignment of error must quote or summarize the evidence that appellant believes was erroneously admitted or excluded. If an assignment of error challenges the exclusion of evidence, appellant also must identify in the record where the trial court excluded the evidence and where the offer of proof was made; if an assignment of error challenges the admission of evidence, appellant also must identify where in the record the evidence was admitted.
(b) Where a party has requested that the court review a claimed error as plain error, the party must identify the precise error, specify the state of the proceedings when the error was made, and set forth pertinent quotations of the record where the challenged error was made.
(5) Under the subheading “Standard of Review,” each assignment of error must identify the applicable standard or standards of review, supported by citation to the statute, case law, or other legal authority for each standard of review.2
(6) Each assignment of error must be followed by the argument. If several assignments of error present essentially the same legal question, the argument in support of them may be combined so far as practicable.
(7) The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should consider the error.3
****
1 For an error to be plain error, it must be an error of law, obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences; in determining whether to exercise its discretion to consider an error that qualifies as a plain error, the court takes into account a non-exclusive list of factors, including the interests of the parties, the nature of the case, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice in the particular case. See State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629-30, 317 P3d 889 (2013).
2 Standards of review include but are not limited to de novo review and substantial evidence for factual issues, errors of law and abuse of discretion for legal issues, and special statutory standards of review such as those found in the Administrative Procedures Act, ORS 183.400(4), and ORS 183.482(7) and (8). See also ORS 19.415(1), which provides that, generally, “upon an appeal in an action or proceeding, without regard to whether the action or proceeding was triable to the court or a jury,” the court’s review “shall be as provided in section 3, Article VII (Amended) of the Oregon Constitution”; ORS 19.415(3)(b) regarding discretion of the Court of Appeals to try the cause de novo or make one or more factual findings anew on appeal in some equitable proceedings; see also ORAP 5.40(8) concerning appellant’s request for the court to exercise de novo review and providing a list of nonexclusive items Court of Appeals may consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion.
3 See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673, 349 P3d 597, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (declining to review for plain error absent a request from the appellant).
