Action by appellate court on appeal
- review of order granting new trial or judgment notwithstanding verdict
- reversal upon loss or destruction of reporter’s notes or audio records
Source:
Section 19.420 — Action by appellate court on appeal; review of order granting new trial or judgment notwithstanding verdict; reversal upon loss or destruction of reporter’s notes or audio records, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors019.html.
Notes of Decisions
A respondent seeking to sustain the judgment is not required to cross-appeal from the judgment in order to preserve for the appellate court’s consideration alleged errors by the trial court, but he must unequivocally make the alleged error an issue on appeal and clearly contend that if the judgment cannot be sustained he is entitled to a new trial or other relief because of the alleged error of the trial court. Artman v. Ray, 263 Or 529, 501 P2d 63 (1972)
When a tort claim against defendant rests only on the doctrine of respondeat superior and defendant’s agent is found not liable at first, the case should be remanded for entry of judgment in favor of defendant. Sisk v. McPartland, 267 Or 116, 515 P2d 179 (1973)
To obtain reversal due to lack of notes, records or exhibits, appellant must show that appellant made every reasonable effort to secure missing item and must make at least prima facie showing of error, of unfairness at trial or that there has been miscarriage of justice. Ethyl Corp. v. Jalbert, 270 Or 651, 529 P2d 368 (1974); Smith v. Custom Micro, Inc., 311 Or 375, 811 P2d 1371 (1991); State v. Dam, 116 Or App 210, 840 P2d 1317 (1992); State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Dahl, 158 Or App 479, 974 P2d 783 (1999)
Where defendant appeals conviction for driving under influence of intoxicants and assigns error to trial court’s admission of statements made to police, failure to take judicial notice of certain facts and instruction to jury, trial court did not err in admitting statements that defendant had driven earlier that evening, committed harmless error in failure to take notice that Eskalith comes in various size capsules and since record relating to jury instruction was not preserved, Appeals Court unable to review whether trial court sufficiently apprised jury of grounds for exception. State v. Kennedy, 95 Or App 663, 771 P2d 281 (1989)
Evidence supporting jury decision against judgment n.o.v. was not limited to plaintiff’s case in chief. King v. All Pro Services, Inc., 120 Or App 479, 852 P2d 943 (1993)
Up to date