Legal Opinion

Bolt v. Influence, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 2002No. CC 9911-12433; SC S48510PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

In this original mandamus proceeding, we consider the legal standards governing a trial court’s decision on a motion to amend a complaint to add a punitive damages claim in a products liability case. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend on the ground that they had not presented evidence sufficient for a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were entitled to punitive damages. Because ORS 18.535(3) sets out a less demanding “directed verdict” standard for evaluating a motion to amend to add a punitive damages claim, we conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Gaston v. ParsonsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Farrin v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. State v. StamperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Woodbury v. CH2M Hill, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Trees v. OrdonezOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003

27 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