6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (“[T]he policies behind the preservation rule ensure that the trial court has an opportunity to consider and rule on a contention, which, in turn, allows the trial court to avoid or correct an error”). 2015See State v. Davis, 265 Or App 179, 183 , 335 P3d 1266 (2014) (“[T]he policies behind the preservation rule ensure that the trial court has an opportunity to consider and rule on a contention, which, in turn, allows the trial court to avoid or correct an error”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Parkins
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Peeples v. Lampert
green
2 sentences2015Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). 2015Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 219 , 191 P3d 637 (2008). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2014State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011). 2014State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 548 , 258 P3d 1228 (2011). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Becker v. Pearson
green
2 sentences1980Becker v. Pearson, 241 Or 215, 222 , 405 P2d 534 (1965). 1980Becker v. Pearson, 241 Or 215, 222 , 405 P2d 534 (1965). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Stark v. Henneman
neutral
2 sentences1980Any further motion on the record by defendant Pollard would have been a meaningless and unnecessary formality.” (Emphasis supplied.) *805 Although it is true that refusal of a motion for a directed verdict is generally a condition precedent to the court’s power to order a judgment n.o.v., Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or 34, 36 , 440 P2d 364 (1968), the primary reason for the requirement is to give the trial court an opportunity to consider and rule upon the issue before an appellate court can properly be asked to do so. 1980Any further motion on the record by defendant Pollard would have been a meaningless and unnecessary formality.” (Emphasis supplied.) *805 Although it is true that refusal of a motion for a directed verdict is generally a condition precedent to the court’s power to order a judgment n.o.v., Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or 34, 36 , 440 P2d 364 (1968), the primary reason for the requirement is to give the trial court an opportunity to consider and rule upon the issue before an appellate court can properly be asked to do so. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
LITHIA LUMBER COMPANY v. Lamb
green
2 sentences1975Thus, in Lithia Lumber Co. v. Lamb, supra , several defendants were involved, with the result that the requested peremptory instruction "would have resulted in directed verdicts in favor of each of the defendants separately." Under these circumstances, this court said ( 250 Or. at 450 , 443 P.2d at 650 ): "* * * A motion for a directed verdict * * * should have been made, as it would have forced the trial court to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence of joint liability. * * *" In this case, plaintiff's complaint charged defendants with converting a large number of items of personal property 1975Thus, in Lithia Lumber Co. v. Lamb, supra , several defendants were involved, with the result that the requested peremptory instruction "would have resulted in directed verdicts in favor of each of the defendants separately." Under these circumstances, this court said ( 250 Or. at 450 , 443 P.2d at 650 ): "* * * A motion for a directed verdict * * * should have been made, as it would have forced the trial court to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence of joint liability. * * *" In this case, plaintiff's complaint charged defendants with converting a large number of items of personal property | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.