Chappell v. Frick Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the distinction between the application of law to fact and a legal conclusion is 28 not always easy to draw”
• “While the rule allows a party to request an admission of “the application of law to fact,” “[r]equests for purely legal conclusions ... are generally not permitted.”
• “Although Plaintiff has 23 nominally tied its RFAs to the facts of the case, the request remains a legal conclusion: 24 whether or not the Victaulic products are defective under Oregon law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).