Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hammel v. McCulloch

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 3, 2019No. A163891Published

1Dissent

SERCOMBE, S. J., dissenting.

The issue under review is whether plaintiffs satisfied their burden of going forward with evidence under ORCP 47 C, that, but for defendants' negligence, plaintiffs would have obtained a more favorable settlement of their asserted and unasserted claims in the two mediations. The majority concludes that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to discharge that burden, reversing the trial court's legal conclusions that the proffered evidence of a more favorable settlement was inadmissible and that the proof of loss was speculative. The majority determines that…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Parker v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Slovensky v. FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Filbin v. FitzgeraldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

8 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