subject matter inquiry in Oregon

2019The court shall hold the summary hearing outside the 414 State v. Rodriguez The privilege against self-incrimination covers both answers that would support a conviction and answers “which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant.” Hoffman, 341 US at 486 .

1968The rule on opinion evidence is: “ ‘The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; * * Everart v. Fisher, 75 Or 316, 326 , 145 P 33 , 147 P 189 (1915), quoting from Muldowney v. Illinois Central Ry.

1968The rule on opinion evidence is: “ ‘The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; * * Everart v. Fisher, 75 Or 316, 326 , 145 P 33 , 147 P 189 (1915), quoting from Muldowney v. Illinois Central Ry.

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1959Co., 36 Iowa 462 , 473: “The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; * * *279 See, also, Schweiger v. Solbeck, 191 Or 454, 472-473 , 230 P2d 195 , 29 ALR2d 435; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, Inc., 171 Or 415, 427 , 137 P2d 986 ; Scott v. Astor

1939We find no error disclosed by this contention. *389 Next, the plaintiff contends that the instruction erroneously defined the term “gross negligence.” Most of the definition was quoted from the last five sentences of the paragraph which is numbered two in Rauch v. Stecklein, 142 Or. 286 , 20 P. (2d) 387 .

1939We find no error disclosed by this contention. *389 Next, the plaintiff contends that the instruction erroneously defined the term “gross negligence.” Most of the definition was quoted from the last five sentences of the paragraph which is numbered two in Rauch v. Stecklein, 142 Or. 286 , 20 P. (2d) 387 .

1931Whether a witness is possessed of such adequate knowledge of, or special qualifications upon, the subject matter of the inquiry as will tend to give value to his opinions and thereby render them admissible in evidence is a matter which rests largely in the discretion of the trial court: State v. Jennings, 131 Or. 455 ( 282 P. 560 ).

1931Whether a witness is possessed of such adequate knowledge of, or special qualifications upon, the subject matter of the inquiry as will tend to give value to his opinions and thereby render them admissible in evidence is a matter which rests largely in the discretion of the trial court: State v. Jennings, 131 Or. 455 ( 282 P. 560 ).

1929Co. v. Sanders, 86 Or. 62 ( 167 P. 564 ); Rugenstein v. Ottenheim, 70 Or. 600 ( 140 P. 747 ); Farmers’ etc. Nat.

1929Co. v. Sanders, 86 Or. 62 ( 167 P. 564 ); Rugenstein v. Ottenheim, 70 Or. 600 ( 140 P. 747 ); Farmers’ etc. Nat.

1929Co. v. Sanders, 86 Or. 62 ( 167 P. 564 ); Rugenstein v. Ottenheim, 70 Or. 600 ( 140 P. 747 ); Farmers’ etc. Nat.

1929Co. v. Sanders, 86 Or. 62 ( 167 P. 564 ); Rugenstein v. Ottenheim, 70 Or. 600 ( 140 P. 747 ); Farmers’ etc. Nat.

1922This rule is supported by a great weight of authority: See Noblitt v. Durbin, 41 Or. 555 ( 69 Pac. 685 ); Bartel v. Lope, 6 Or. 321, 327 ; 1 Greenl.

1914“The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; and that the opinions of witnesses cannot be received, when the inquiry is into a subject matter, the nature of which is' not such as to require any particular habits or study, in order to qualify a

1914“The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, without such assistance; in other words, when it so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; and that the opinions of witnesses cannot be received, when the inquiry is into a subject matter, the nature of which is' not such as to require any particular habits or study, in order to qualify a

1901Co. 25 Or. 291 ( 35 Pac. 653 ); Campbell v. Russell, 139 Mass. 278 ( 1 N. E. 345 ). 2.

1901Co. 25 Or. 291 ( 35 Pac. 653 ); Campbell v. Russell, 139 Mass. 278 ( 1 N. E. 345 ). 2.

1901Co. 25 Or. 291 ( 35 Pac. 653 ); Campbell v. Russell, 139 Mass. 278 ( 1 N. E. 345 ). 2.

1901Co. 25 Or. 291 ( 35 Pac. 653 ); Campbell v. Russell, 139 Mass. 278 ( 1 N. E. 345 ). 2.

1900Dec. 607, an action was brought to recover damages for injuries resulting from backing water on a meadow, and the plaintiff, having testified in regard to- the injury sustained thereby, was asked, “Taking that hay as it stood there, what would it yield to the acre?” and, having been permitted to answer the question, it was held that no. error was thus committed, the court say ing: “The farmer, acquainted with the subject-matter of such an inquiry as this under consideration, is an expert, and, unless the witness has the peculiar knowledge which constitutes him an expert, his opinion would be e

1900In Seamans v. Smith, 46 Barb. 320 , it was held that, a witness being a farmer, his experience as such rendered him competent to answer the question, “What portion of the buckwheat the defendant’s horses destroyed, in the fall of 1861,” and that an objection to such interrogatory was properly overruled.