Oregon Supreme Court· 9/15/1994

State v. Arnold

Citations

879 P.2d 1272
320 Or. 111
1994 Ore. LEXIS 94

How courts have described this case

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

holding that post-trial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did “not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial”
holding that post-trial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did “not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as, with reasonable diligence, could not have been dis- covered and produced at trial”
identifying, as one factor, that newly discovered evidence “must be such as, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered before or during the trial”
applying the rules for interpreting statutes to the rules of civil procedure
applying rules for interpreting statutes to the rules of civil procedure
evidence discovered during trial admissible if it is “such that it cannot, with reasonable diligence, be used during trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham, Fade-Ley, Fadeley, Unis, Van Hoomissen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.