Legal Opinion

Niemela v. Collings

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1973PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant in this personal injury action. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial contending that several jurors were guilty of misconduct. Plaintiff’s motion was denied and he appeals.

The defendant’s verdict was 11 to 1. The plaintiff filed the dissenting juror’s affidavit with his motion for new trial. The affiant stated that the jury foreman told the affiant that he had ridden with the defendant bus driver during the trial and that the bus driver told him that the accident was the plaintiff’s fault. The affiant also stated that another juror stated she…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. MagersOregon Supreme Court · 1899
  2. State v. GardnerOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Thomas v. DAD'S ROOT BEER, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Bratt v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  5. State of Oregon v. ImlahOregon Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Moore v. AdamsOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  3. McElwain v. KabatoffOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Ertsgaard v. BeardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. DC Thompson and Co. v. HaugeOregon Supreme Court · 1986

3 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