Bolt v. Influence, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Gaston v. ParsonsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Farrin v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- State v. StamperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- Woodbury v. CH2M Hill, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
- Trees v. OrdonezOregon Supreme Court · 2013
- Rathgeber v. James Hemenway, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.