Beardsley v. Hill
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSloan, J.
This was an action for personal injuries. The jury returned a verdict for defendant; judgment was entered accordingly. The trial court allowed plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and defendant appeals from that order. The assignments challenge the allowance of the order on the merits and also present the issue that the order allowing the new trial was not filed within fifty-five days. (ORS 17.615) We have concluded that the order was not timely filed and there fore will not be required to consider the correctness of the trial court’s ruling in allowing the motion.
The judgment for defendant was…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Pringle Falls Power Co. v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Barone v. BaroneOregon Supreme Court · 1956
- Kingsley v. KresslyOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- United States Nat. Bank v. SheflerOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- De Golia v. AndersenOregon Supreme Court · 1921
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. HansenOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Bither v. Baker Rock Crushing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1968
- Charco, Inc. v. CohnOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Clark v. Auto Wholesale Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1964
- McCollum v. KMART CORP.Oregon Supreme Court · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.