Oregon Supreme Court· 6/26/1997

Jones v. General Motors Corp.

Citations

939 P.2d 608
325 Or. 404
1997 Ore. LEXIS 59

How courts have described this case

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

holding plaintiff submitted evidence creating issue of fact that car was defective when it left defendant’s control
explaining that the summary judgment focus on “sufficient evidence” to allow the jury to decide the fac- tual issues “has led both courts and commentators to com- pare the motion for summary judgment to the motion for a directed verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)
explaining that the summary judgment focus on “sufficient evidence” to allow the jury to decide the fac- tual issues “has led both courts and commentators to com- pare the motion for summary judgment to the motion for a directed verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)
treating previous Supreme Court interpretations of ORCP 47 as “context” for the 1995 amendment to the rule that the defendant asserted was intended to legislatively modify or overrule the previous case law
applying revised summary judgment standard retroactively on appeal would violate due process
applying revised summary judgment standard on appeal would violate due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Durham, Kulongoski

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

384 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Jones v. General Motors Corp.

13 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.