Legal Opinion

Peitsch v. Keizer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 26, 2008No. 042260; A132583PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment, following an adverse jury verdict, in a malpractice action. They assign error both to the trial court’s failure to give their requested jury instruction on causation and to the instruction on causation that the court did give. We conclude that neither of those claims of error was preserved for our review, as prescribed by ORCP 59 H. Accordingly, we affirm.

A description of the parties’ dispute — and, indeed, of the substance of the disputed jury instructions — is immaterial to our disposition on grounds of lack of preservation. ORCP 59 H provides:

“(1) A party…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. ex rel. Department of Motor VehiclesOregon Supreme Court · 2002

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hammer v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. Snider v. Production Chemical Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. Wilson v. WALLUSKI WESTERN LTD.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. Cestaro v. State Ex Rel. Department of State PoliceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  5. State v. DriesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API