Jones v. General Motors Corp.

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).