Maulding v. Clackamas County

How courts have described this case

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

• applying former ORS 17.610(7) (1977), the statutory predecessor to ORCP 64 B(6), and holding that the defendant could not obtain a new trial based on an erro- neous jury instruction when the defendant had not objected to or excepted to the instruction when given
• although an agency may adopt a \particular edition\ of another body's code, it may not prospectively adopt subsequent changes to that code
• under a previous, similar version of the statute, “when an appeal is taken from an order granting a new trial the right to cross-appeal from an adverse decision on a motion for [JNOV] is also granted by implication and * * * we are authorized to consider the mer- its of that motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).