Legal Opinion

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1997No. CC C89-0099CV; CA A73536; SC S41806PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, 322 Or 406, 908 P2d 300 (1995), this court concluded that, in the context of a dispute between Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and its franchisee, Tualatin Tire & Auto (Tualatin), the “we can’t tell” rule of Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 309 Or 350, 788 P2d 428 (1990), does not justify the granting of a new trial on appeal when, by operation of ORCP 63 C, the appellant is deemed to have waived that remedy. In accordance with that ruling, we reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had remanded certain of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUDOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Maulding v. Clackamas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State v. StamperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. BarnesOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Matter of Marriage of DentonOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Strader v. Grange Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

30 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