Legal Opinion

Vandermay v. Clayton

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1999No. CC 92-2104; CA A91235; SC S44717PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

In this legal malpractice action, the question is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that, without expert testimony, the jury could not have found that defendant had been negligent. The Court of Appeals held that expert testimony was not necessary and reversed the trial court. Vander-may v. Clayton, 147 Or App 95, 935 P2d 1221 (1997). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We review the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for errors of law, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, 1 the party…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Getchell v. MansfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Godell v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Lynd v. ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Yamaha Store of Bend, Oregon, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.Oregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Vandermay v. ClaytonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. FFE Transportation Services, Inc. v. FulghamTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Trees v. OrdonezOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Pereira v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. City of Eugene v. MonacoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  5. Hinchman v. UC Market, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

14 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