Legal Opinion

Wattenburg v. United Medical Laboratories, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 1974PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants in this slander case. The trial court, however, granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground that one of the defendants’ attorneys made an improper closing argument. The defendants appeal.

The defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict. If the defendants are correct, whether the trial court erred in ordering a new trial becomes immaterial.

The defendants admit the utterance of the defamatory statements. The issues on the motion for a directed verdict are whether the utterance was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rickard v. EllisOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Hays v. HermanOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Palmer v. Van Petten Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Foster v. Agri-Chem, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1963

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. GreenOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Hulse v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSBDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2002
  3. Wallulis v. DymowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Rogers v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Benassi v. Georgia-PacificCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

29 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