Legal Opinion

Denley v. Mutual of Omaha

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1968PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMengler, J.

(Pro Tempore).

This is an action at law brought to recover for “confining total loss of time” benefits allegedly accrued under an insurance policy issued by defendant. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $8,530. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict.

The question presented on appeal is did the trial court err in the following particulars: (1) In denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the testimony; (2) In permitting plaintiff to amend his complaint during the course of the trial; and (3) In failing to give two of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Young v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. KingCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1965

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Resser v. Boise Cascade Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Pennsylvania Life Insurance v. BumbreyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1987
  3. Holmes v. Oregon Ass'n of Credit Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  4. Miller v. Pacific Trawlers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  5. Wolverton v. StanwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1977

4 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