Legal Opinion

Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 10, 2003No. 9803-02267; A107409Published

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co., 335 Or 143, 61 P3d 923 (2003). In our original decision, we held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial; that motion should have been granted, we concluded, because the trial court gave the deadlocked jury an improperly coercive verdict-urging instruction. Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co., 178 Or App 397, 410, 37 P3d 1005 (2001). We therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial. Id. That disposition obviated our need to address defendant’s other assignments of error. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. Barbo MacHinery Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Rhodes v. HarwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Schlimgen v. MAY TRUCKING COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Hiestand v. WolfardOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Schlimgen v. May Trucking Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API