Legal Opinion

Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 19, 2001No. 9803-02267; A107409PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

After deliberating for nearly two days, after twice announcing to the trial court that it was deadlocked on the issue of apportioning fault, and after receiving two supplemental instructions urging it to continue deliberating, the jury in this negligence case returned a verdict finding defendant 60 percent at fault. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court’s instructions violated the rule against coercing a deadlocked jury into reaching a verdict. Plaintiff maintains that the rule does not apply in civil cases and that, in any event, the trial court in this case did not give a coercive…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Allen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Lakeside v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Brown v. J. C. Penney Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Schlimgen v. MAY TRUCKING COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  3. Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API