Legal Opinion
State v. Arnold
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 15, 1994No. CC C90-11-36757; CA A70340; SC S40291PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*113VAN HOOMISSEN, J.
The issue in this criminal case is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s post-trial motion for a new trial. More specifically, we are called on to consider how ORCP 64 B(4),1 a rule that allows a trial court to order a new trial based on “newly discovered” evidence, applies to evidence discovered during trial. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. State v. Arnold, 118 Or App 64, 71, 846 P2d 418 (1993). For the reasons that follow, we disagree and reverse.
Grundy, a daycare provider who was concerned…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Honda Motor Co. v. ObergSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Oberg v. Honda Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. EvansOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Larson v. Heintz Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998
- McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Michael Jon Bailey v. Diane Rae, Oregon State Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision, ChairpersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Durham v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.