Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fairbrother v. Rinker

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1976Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTongue, J.

I concur in the holding by the majority that the trial court erred in an instruction to the jury and that, as a result, the case must be reversed for a new trial. I dissent, however, from the holding by the majority that the trial judge did not err in refusing to permit plaintiff’s attorney to impeach the credibility of defen*531dant’s investigator by showing, among other facts, that he was hired and paid by Allstate Insurance Co.

In this case of admitted liability the jury returned a defense verdict. The obvious and successful strategy of the defense was to capitalize on sympathy by the jury for…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jessup v. DavisNebraska Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Blake v. Roy Webster OrchardsOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Smith v. Pacific Truck ExpressOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Causey v. CorneliusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Johnson v. HansenOregon Supreme Court · 1964

10 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