Legal Opinion

DC Thompson and Co. v. Hauge

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1986No. TC C-7286, CA A32426, SC S31602PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*653LENT, J.

There are two issues. The first is whether failure to file a timely undertaking on appeal is a jurisdictional defect. The second is whether after a verdict is received and the jury is discharged, juror affidavits may be received and a new trial ordered based upon juror error in interpreting the effect of the verdict. As to the first issue, we hold that the untimely filing of the undertaking was not a jurisdictional defect. As to the second, we hold that such affidavits or testimony may not be received and thus may not serve as the basis for ordering a new trial.1

Plaintiff landlord…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. GardnerOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Cyr v. MichaudSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
  3. Pittsburgh National Bank v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Carson v. BrauerOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Schmitz v. YantOregon Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ertsgaard v. BeardOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. RamozOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  3. State v. WoodmanOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Leland Properties, Inc. v. Burton Engineering & Survey Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  5. Ertsgaard v. BeardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

2 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