Legal Opinion

MAN Aktiengesellschaft v. DaimlerChrysler AG

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 20, 2008No. 041213050; A135989PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

The state is not a party to the underlying dispute between plaintiffs and defendants in. this case but asserts that it has an interest under ORS 31.735 in the jury’s award of punitive damages. The state has appealed from a supplemental judgment dismissing the case that the trial court entered as part of a settlement between plaintiffs and defendants. As part of entering the supplemental judgment, the trial court vacated the general judgment that it had previously entered, in which the state was a judgment creditor as to 60 percent of the jury’s award of punitive damages to plaintiffs. On our…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GuzekOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Kellas v. Department of CorrectionsOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  4. DeMendoza v. HuffmanOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. May v. Josephine Memorial Hospital, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Patton v. Target Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  3. Funkhouser v. WELLS FARGO CORP.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. Patton v. Target Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  5. Department of Human Services v. B. M. C.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

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