Legal Opinion

Hall v. Corning

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1967PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

The plaintiff landowners received a jury verdict in their action for trespass. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs appeal. *35The issue is whether the defendants are vicariously liable for the acts of a bulldozer operator.

The motion for a new trial was based upon the ground that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the jury.① For this reason the evidence will be considered in its form most favorable to plaintiffs.

When a motion for a new trial is granted upon the ground that there is no evidence upon which to submit the case to the jury, the trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mature v. AngeloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Wemett v. MountOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Williams v. Clemen's Forest Products, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Penrose v. Mitchell Bros. Crane Division, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Lundquist v. IrvineOregon Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Eldridge v. Allstate Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Johnson v. FieldOregon Supreme Court · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API