Legal Opinion

Micek v. LeMaster

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 19, 1984No. 81-3-14; CA A30011PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

The issue is whether an order granting defendant’s 1 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is void because it was not heard and determined within 55 days of the entry of judgment as required by ORCP 63D. We hold that the order is void and reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the judgment for plaintiff.

On June 2, 1983, judgment was entered for plaintiff following a jury verdict in her favor. Defendant filed a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. ORCP 63D; ORCP 64F. Because of scheduling conflicts, the hearing on…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Waybrant v. BernsteinOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Crow v. Junior BootshopsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Nendel v. MeyersOregon Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Ernst v. Logan Oldsmobile Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Clark v. Auto Wholesale Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1964

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United Adjusters, Inc. v. ShaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Fehrenbacher v. FehrenbacherCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  4. Parmenter v. ParmenterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API