French v. Braintree Manufacturing Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an issue was preserved when the court raised the issue sua sponte, even though the defendant “did little to advance that discussion”
• concluding that the defendant did not equivocally invoke his right to counsel by asking, “Do I need one?” after he was read Miranda rights
• holding that the defendant had adequately preserved OEC 403 objection even though his argument to trial court primarily focused on relevance and spoke little of prejudice, where he asserted that the evidence would be 'extremely prejudicial'
• explaining that the purposes of the preservation requirement include (1) appris- ing the trial court of a party’s position such that the court can consider and rule on the party’s contention, (2
• explaining that an invocation is equivocal “when the suspect’s statement or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that [he, she, or they are] invoking the right” at issue
• explaining that an invocation is equivocal “when the suspect’s statement or request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is that [he, she, or they are] invoking the right” at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).